[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Fires - haresfur - Nov 13, 2019 - 12:49am
 
Things You Thought Today - kurtster - Nov 13, 2019 - 12:40am
 
MacOS app - gtufano - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:38pm
 
What are you listening to now? - Steely_D - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:15pm
 
Trump - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:15pm
 
What Makes You Sad? - Steely_D - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:10pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Nov 12, 2019 - 10:28pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:24pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - GeneP59 - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:22pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - GeneP59 - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:15pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 4:49pm
 
Name My Band - SeriousLee - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:47pm
 
The Black Crowes - SeriousLee - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:46pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 2:33pm
 
Don't Make Me Laugh - Red_Dragon - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:53am
 
Bolivia - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:08am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:47am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 12, 2019 - 8:59am
 
Health Care - miamizsun - Nov 12, 2019 - 8:18am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - cc_rider - Nov 12, 2019 - 7:59am
 
Immigration - Isabeau - Nov 12, 2019 - 7:31am
 
Counting with Pictures - yuel - Nov 12, 2019 - 6:33am
 
Ebola - miamizsun - Nov 12, 2019 - 5:27am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Nov 12, 2019 - 5:14am
 
Browser history - lyteroptes - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:55am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - sirdroseph - Nov 12, 2019 - 1:33am
 
Democratic Party - westslope - Nov 11, 2019 - 9:29pm
 
Neil Young - westslope - Nov 11, 2019 - 5:38pm
 
Talking Heads - R_P - Nov 11, 2019 - 4:50pm
 
The death penalty on trial? - cc_rider - Nov 11, 2019 - 3:16pm
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Nov 11, 2019 - 3:12pm
 
Canada - SeriousLee - Nov 11, 2019 - 2:52pm
 
Republican Party - Isabeau - Nov 11, 2019 - 1:18pm
 
TWO WORDS - Isabeau - Nov 11, 2019 - 10:37am
 
Puzzle it - SeriousLee - Nov 11, 2019 - 8:00am
 
Song, artist & album cover on apple TV app - gtufano - Nov 11, 2019 - 2:16am
 
Economix - westslope - Nov 10, 2019 - 2:33pm
 
Stuff you didn't know - Red_Dragon - Nov 10, 2019 - 2:18pm
 
2020 Elections - Red_Dragon - Nov 10, 2019 - 1:40pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 1:37pm
 
Today in History - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 9:09am
 
Jriver album covers not displayed - olivierbo73 - Nov 10, 2019 - 3:46am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - bgbgbg - Nov 10, 2019 - 2:35am
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 12:34am
 
RIP R.E.M. - R_P - Nov 9, 2019 - 10:25pm
 
New Music - R_P - Nov 9, 2019 - 8:10pm
 
Neoliberalism: what exactly is it? - westslope - Nov 9, 2019 - 6:24pm
 
Military Matters - westslope - Nov 9, 2019 - 6:20pm
 
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't... - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 2:37pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - sirdroseph - Nov 9, 2019 - 7:08am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 5:18am
 
Music Videos - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 5:15am
 
What Did You See Today? - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 4:46am
 
Out the window - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 4:43am
 
What can you hear right now? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 8, 2019 - 7:58pm
 
Alternative URL for .ogg stream ? - sbarnum - Nov 8, 2019 - 6:03pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Nov 8, 2019 - 4:36pm
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 3:32pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 3:06pm
 
Things I wish for ..... - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:57pm
 
Great guitar faces - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:53pm
 
More reggae, less Marley please - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:34pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:23pm
 
Movie Quote - Proclivities - Nov 8, 2019 - 12:04pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Nov 8, 2019 - 10:14am
 
Just pictures - Proclivities - Nov 8, 2019 - 8:40am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 8, 2019 - 8:09am
 
What music have you paid real money for recently? - haresfur - Nov 8, 2019 - 5:30am
 
FLAC stream - antakar - Nov 8, 2019 - 4:58am
 
Q: How Many Surrealists Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?? - oldviolin - Nov 7, 2019 - 3:27pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Nov 7, 2019 - 2:42pm
 
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon? - miamizsun - Nov 7, 2019 - 2:18pm
 
News of the Weird - miamizsun - Nov 7, 2019 - 2:14pm
 
Radiohead - R_P - Nov 7, 2019 - 1:31pm
 
Apple TV - oklahope - Nov 7, 2019 - 1:18pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 165, 166, 167  Next
Post to this Topic
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 15, 2019 - 8:26am

 miamizsun wrote:
The Alternative to Ideology

 


He has a great quote from Norberto Bobbio at the end:

There were only a few of us who preserved a small bag in which, before throwing ourselves into the sea, we deposited for safekeeping the most salutary fruits of the European intellectual tradition, the value of enquiry, the ferment of doubt, a willingness to dialogue, a spirit of criticism, moderation of judgment, philological scruple, a sense of the complexity of things. Many, too many, deprived themselves of this baggage: they either abandoned it, considering it a useless weight; or they never possessed it, throwing themselves into the waters before having the time to acquire it. I do not reproach them; but I prefer the company of the others. Indeed, I suspect that this company is destined to grow, as the years bring wisdom and events shed new light on things. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 15, 2019 - 6:20am

i think i've posted this before, but it may be worth posting again

it falls short in a couple of areas and makes great points in others

probably worth your time...enjoy


The Alternative to Ideology


When we launched the Niskanen Center in January 2015, we happily identified ourselves as libertarians. Sure, we were heterodox libertarians, but there are many schools of libertarianism beyond those promoted by Charles Koch’s political operationsThe school we identified with was a left-libertarianism concerned with social justice (a libertarian perspective that I’ve defended in debates with more orthodox libertarians here and here). That worldview lacked an institutional voice in 2015. Our ambition was to create a space for it and, in so doing, redefine what it meant to be libertarian in the 21st century.

I have abandoned that libertarian project, however, because I have come to abandon ideology. This essay is an invitation for you to do likewise — to walk out of the “clean and well-lit prison of one idea.” Ideology encourages dodgy reasoning due to what psychologists call “motivated cognition,” which is the act of deciding what you want to believe and using your reasoning power, with all its might, to get you there. Worse, it encourages fanaticism, disregard for social outcomes, and invites irresolvable philosophical disputes. It also threatens social pluralism — which is to say, it threatens freedom.

The better alternative is not moral relativism. The better alternative is moderation, a commodity that is rapidly disappearing in political life, with dangerous consequences for the American republic.

more...





westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jun 5, 2019 - 9:30am

I believe that monetary policy should be a priority issue for Libertarians and libertarian-minded folks.

James Bullard, St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank president just called for interest rate cuts for a couple of reasons, among them, to increase the inflation rate which is sitting well below the 2% target at roughly 1.6% in recent years.

I believe that the inflation target should be 0% and the US Federal Reserve should drop the employment mandate.    Insure price stability (including financial asset stability) and then get the hell out of the way.  

Many macro economists  believe that positive rates of inflation are necessary in order to fool agents into better outcomes.   It is paternalism of the worst kind and contradicts the approach taken to most economic policy issues by economists who tend to favour transparency and accurate information.

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jun 3, 2019 - 1:38pm

Now islander, that bottle is a thing of beauty!
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 3, 2019 - 12:51pm



 westslope wrote:


 Lazy8 wrote:
.....

If you must know I was in Seattle getting my dance on and soaking up some most excellent music.

.........

Well that should not surprise any of us as this is a music-inspired forum.

Though, personally, I would have hoped that you were chasing summer-run steelhead on the Olympic Peninsula.    With dry flies.  



 


westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jun 3, 2019 - 11:38am



 Lazy8 wrote:
.....

If you must know I was in Seattle getting my dance on and soaking up some most excellent music.

.........

Well that should not surprise any of us as this is a music-inspired forum.

Though, personally, I would have hoped that you were chasing summer-run steelhead on the Olympic Peninsula.    With dry flies.  



kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 3, 2019 - 10:52am

 sirdroseph wrote:
This is in this thread and not the other because this is much more than weed, this is a libertarians dream on many levels.  JFK got shot over this.   Ron Paul is smiling.



California Senate Passes Revolutionary Bill to Bypass Federal Reserve, Create Cannabis Banking Industry



 
This is very very cool.  IIRC one of the Dakotas has their own state banking system which has been in place for decades.  The state has been prospering as a direct result.

And yes about JFK ...

.
OBTW ... The Federal banking system has doing the same thing to gun store owners for about the past 10 or so years.  They have a hard time keeping a bank that will handle their money.  And their businesses are legal and well regulated ...

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jun 3, 2019 - 8:34am



 Lazy8 wrote:
westslope wrote:
Hey, I am doing my best here to paint Libertarians as mainstream and centrist.   We all want more Libertarians elected to office, no?

You paint yours and I'll paint mine.
 
Spoken like a true individualist.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 3, 2019 - 7:34am

westslope wrote:
Hey, I am doing my best here to paint Libertarians as mainstream and centrist.   We all want more Libertarians elected to office, no?

You paint yours and I'll paint mine.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jun 3, 2019 - 7:08am



 Lazy8 wrote:
......

As for the statist claim...I've only ever heard that from anarchists before, and I think even they realize how silly it sounds. But whatever floats your valves.
 
Hey, I am doing my best here to paint Libertarians as mainstream and centrist.   We all want more Libertarians elected to office, no?

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 31, 2019 - 2:59pm

westslope wrote:
Lift the libertarian's skirt a bit and there you find  the essence of a devoted Statist.   With just a slight albeit interesting variation on how to do Statism.     

Social anarchists make a more gallant attempt to dismantle the State as much as possible.  Just sayin'.

At one point I was referencing the harm reduction approach literature which I vaguely recall getting some support from  Libertarian writers.

The fact that a popular, widely-used drug like cannabis is dangerous is an excellent reason for legalizing it.  Social control is largely sacrificed in a black market situation.

If you want to make a harm reduction argument I'm down with that, but I'd also argue that it really doesn't apply to cannabis. "Dangerous" is a relative term of course. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were getting at.

As for the statist claim...I've only ever heard that from anarchists before, and I think even they realize how silly it sounds. But whatever floats your valves.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: May 31, 2019 - 2:39pm

Lift the libertarian's skirt a bit and there you find  the essence of a devoted Statist.   With just a slight albeit interesting variation on how to do Statism.     

Social anarchists make a more gallant attempt to dismantle the State as much as possible.  Just sayin'.

At one point I was referencing the harm reduction approach literature which I vaguely recall getting some support from  Libertarian writers.

The fact that a popular, widely-used drug like cannabis is dangerous is an excellent reason for legalizing it.  Social control is largely sacrificed in a black market situation.
 

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 31, 2019 - 8:30am

westslope wrote:
Well, for all I know Lazy8 could be out chasing the baetis hatch or perhaps one of the early stonefly hatches. Let me add to the initial assertion.

As soon as Libertarians come up with better ways of defending the country, with better ways of assuring security and with better ways of attaining public policy goals, then they are typically
contributing to a stronger, more efficient, more productive state.

Discuss.

If you must know I was in Seattle getting my dance on and soaking up some most excellent music.

If you want those better ideas discussed you need to demonstrate that you read what gets written. Those better ways of doing things (or simply not doing them, as some of them aren't legitimate social objectives in the first place) have been discussed. If you have a specific policy question fire away.

A Another 10 years and cannabis will be fully legal across the USA with the exception of some hold-out states.  
Now here's an easy philosophical challenge for Libertarians. 

B
Many of those in favour of legalization will argue that recreational cannabis should be legal precisely because it is dangerous.  C  I other words, legalizing cannabis allows the state to expand its influence so it can 'regulate' more effectively.  

D
So, are Libertarians in favour of a more powerful, effective state?

I'll try to parse this one wobbly concept at a time:

A
Legal in 10 years: yay! I'm betting on less than 5.

B
Don't care what many of those in favour are arguing, tho:

1. I've never, in 40 years of libertarian activism, ever heard anyone argue that—likely because
2. "It should be legal because it's dangerous" is a stupid argument.

C Your second assertion does not follow. Legalizing things means less state control. Period.

If you want to argue that legalizing a trade or substance means the state can regulate that trade or substance (to a lesser degree than an outright ban) then...um, yeah, that happens. California, for instance, taxed legal weed at such an absurdly high rate that people were sticking to the black market. Colorado's less-heavy-handed approach resulted in substantial revenue for the state, which has other lessons for taxation that I won't digress into here.

In other words the possibility that a state might clumsily interfere with a market is not an argument for the state to...interfere with a market in a more-drastic fashion. And as an argument against advocating for less state interference in markets it's utterly incoherent.

D
More powerful: no. More effective: maybe, but only at the legitimate purposes of a state.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: May 31, 2019 - 8:25am

 westslope wrote:


 sirdroseph wrote:
 westslope wrote:
Sir d,

Another 10 years and cannabis will be fully legal across the USA with the exception of some hold-out states.  
Now here's an easy philosophical challenge for Libertarians. 

Many of those in favour of legalization will argue that recreational cannabis should be legal precisely because it is dangerous.   I other words, legalizing cannabis allows the state to expand its influence so it can 'regulate' more effectively.  

So, are Libertarians in favour of a more powerful, effective state?


 
Yea sure whatevs better than being federally enforced as illegal, but you are correct more regulation and control is a problem already illustrated by Monsanto's moving in on the business. However that is just a small relatively insignificant part of all this.   The real issue is the bypassing of the Federal Reserve which should be shut down completely and relinquishing federal control of the money.
Now I will let Lazy school you on why that is a ridiculous non starter question.{#Cowboy}
 

Well, for all I know Lazy8 could be out chasing the baetis hatch or perhaps one of the early stonefly hatches.    Let me add to the initial assertion. 

As soon as Libertarians come up with better ways of defending the country, with better ways of assuring security and with better ways of attaining public policy goals, then they are typically contributing to a stronger, more efficient, more productive state.  Discuss.

 
Which is fine, only the anarchist extreme version of Libertarians would advocate no government at all.  We want more efficient and productive government, but are extremely and rightfully suspicious of the stronger part and demand proving the need for the power in every instance is vetted properly and in line with the Constitution.

 

Por ejemple',  I advocate a better way to defend the country by bringing all of our troops home and only meddling in others affairs if it can be proven that the homeland is in danger from offensive action. This will immediately make us a lot safer.  There that was easy and did not increase the power of the government. {#Cowboy}




westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: May 31, 2019 - 7:53am



 sirdroseph wrote:
 westslope wrote:
Sir d,

Another 10 years and cannabis will be fully legal across the USA with the exception of some hold-out states.  
Now here's an easy philosophical challenge for Libertarians. 

Many of those in favour of legalization will argue that recreational cannabis should be legal precisely because it is dangerous.   I other words, legalizing cannabis allows the state to expand its influence so it can 'regulate' more effectively.  

So, are Libertarians in favour of a more powerful, effective state?


 
Yea sure whatevs better than being federally enforced as illegal, but you are correct more regulation and control is a problem already illustrated by Monsanto's moving in on the business. However that is just a small relatively insignificant part of all this.   The real issue is the bypassing of the Federal Reserve which should be shut down completely and relinquishing federal control of the money.
Now I will let Lazy school you on why that is a ridiculous non starter question.
{#Cowboy}

 

Well, for all I know Lazy8 could be out chasing the baetis hatch or perhaps one of the early stonefly hatches.    Let me add to the initial assertion. 

As soon as Libertarians come up with better ways of defending the country, with better ways of assuring security and with better ways of attaining public policy goals, then they are typically contributing to a stronger, more efficient, more productive state.  Discuss.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: May 30, 2019 - 8:19am

 westslope wrote:
Sir d,

Another 10 years and cannabis will be fully legal across the USA with the exception of some hold-out states.  
Now here's an easy philosophical challenge for Libertarians. 

Many of those in favour of legalization will argue that recreational cannabis should be legal precisely because it is dangerous.   I other words, legalizing cannabis allows the state to expand its influence so it can 'regulate' more effectively.  

So, are Libertarians in favour of a more powerful, effective state?


 
Yea sure whatevs better than being federally enforced as illegal, but you are correct more regulation and control is a problem already illustrated by Monsanto's moving in on the business. However that is just a small relatively insignificant part of all this.   The real issue is the bypassing of the Federal Reserve which should be shut down completely and relinquishing federal control of the money.
Now I will let Lazy school you on why that is a ridiculous non starter question.{#Cowboy}
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: May 30, 2019 - 8:06am

Sir d,

Another 10 years and cannabis will be fully legal across the USA with the exception of some hold-out states.  


Now here's an easy philosophical challenge for Libertarians. 

Many of those in favour of legalization will argue that recreational cannabis should be legal precisely because it is dangerous.   In other words, legalizing cannabis allows the state to expand its influence so it can 'regulate' more effectively.  

So, are Libertarians in favour of a more powerful, effective state?



sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: May 30, 2019 - 2:33am

This is in this thread and not the other because this is much more than weed, this is a libertarians dream on many levels.  JFK got shot over this.   Ron Paul is smiling.



California Senate Passes Revolutionary Bill to Bypass Federal Reserve, Create Cannabis Banking Industry


westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jan 25, 2019 - 9:50am



 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

I can agree with pretty well all of that, just, who is behind this social policy you are talking about? some kind of collective? One of those collectives that trample over the rights of individuals executing an ill-conceived inefficient agenda to rob the rich of their well-begotten gains to benefit the poor and needy? You're not some kind of socialist are you?

Re a right to water:  when I grew up (New Zealand) the right to water was enshrined in common law (I am not a lawyer so correct me if I an wrong) which sounded pretty fair at the time. The upshot was you could always get free tap water at any restaurant. In fact we just served it as a matter of course. One of those civilised practices that I kind of like.

The right to water is a pretty good example of how the distinction between rights and policies is pretty grey. Let's say a man dying of thirst in the desert comes upon a wild stream flowing across private property. He drinks his fill. Should he be arrested for theft?  
 
Water.   The right to access flowing water deemed public and crown land in general is common enough in former British colonies.  Though as far as I know, the public cannot willy nilly privatize water from  a public water body.

In the example you give, I cannot imagine somebody being charged with taking a drink of water.  But the individual might be charged with trespassing if she did not vacate the private land immediately.  

Let's talk about the de facto entitlement right to open access sport fishing on public waters.  It is not enshrined in the Canadian charter of rights but is very much a political reality.  As a consequence, this open access set-up means that righteous BC anglers get to bully and intimidate First Nations (native BCers) on the water.  Is that a good state of affairs?  

Actually most of the really outrageous violence on British Columbia salmon flows is between second comer anglers.  Knifings, gaffings, fist fights, smashed in radiators.

The open-access ideologues in the angling world will argue that "free" is important for poor people.  The truth is that poor people cannot afford the vehicles and fossil fuels to get to the best angling.  So as open access mayhem degrades the quality of sport fishing close to large population centres, rich people simply spend more on carbon-emitting fuels to get to the quality angling. 

Naturally, many BCers including anglers spend a lot of air time decrying the cultural inferiority of BC natives just like Israelis constantly point to the cultural inferiority of the non-Jewish residents of the former Palestinian mandate.    The big boot heels fit better that way.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 25, 2019 - 1:24am

 westslope wrote:
NoEnzLefttoSplit, Lazy8,

That is definitely weighty material that you are discussing.  

I tend  to go about this by working backwards from social objectives.   In that respect, a minimal set of universally recognized human rights helps get humanity to and stay at a better socio-economic outcome.   

I oppose conferring the status of rights on many human needs and wants.    The right to clean water should not be a human right.  Though it should be an important social policy goal.   The right to nutritious food should not be a human right though clearly it is a policy goal that many support.

Housing should not be a human right.  Owning  a single family home should neither be a `right` nor a social policy objective.  As a matter of social policy, I believe it is important and  very much to our collective advantage to provide safe shelter for the destitute among us.  Not public housing.

Medical care is not or at least should not be a human right.   Publicly funded health care for all is a public policy goal that all rich western nations and many others have adopted.  

The strong rights-based approach leads to entitlement-driven social policy that far too often has very negative consequences.   

I am also concerned about the integrity of our democratic system.  A rights based approach tends to confer political decision making to courts and judges.  That is wrong on many levels.  Policy making should reside with elected representatives.  


 
I can agree with pretty well all of that, just, who is behind this social policy you are talking about? some kind of collective? One of those collectives that trample over the rights of individuals executing an ill-conceived inefficient agenda to rob the rich of their well-begotten gains to benefit the poor and needy? You're not some kind of socialist are you?

Re a right to water:  when I grew up (New Zealand) the right to water was enshrined in common law (I am not a lawyer so correct me if I an wrong) which sounded pretty fair at the time. The upshot was you could always get free tap water at any restaurant. In fact we just served it as a matter of course. One of those civilised practices that I kind of like.

The right to water is a pretty good example of how the distinction between rights and policies is pretty grey. Let's say a man dying of thirst in the desert comes upon a wild stream flowing across private property. He drinks his fill. Should he be arrested for theft?  
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 165, 166, 167  Next