Theres a war going on between yobs and the rest of us. This war consists of the yobs doing what ever they like while the rest of us stand around and take it. John is lucky he only lost his job, usually once you have lost your job they know where you live and come round again and mock you, its a free for all as far as the yobs are concerned.

BTW there is a piece in the newsletter about an 81year old who is an ex soldier and is a prisoner in his own home due to yobs.

'the yobs treat all the residents with little respect, including an Asian family next door to Mr Harland and an ed RUC officer accross the street.'

The pensioner is going to leave, his wife has already left of the home they'd shared for 45 years. The paper states the police are calling on parents to be more vigilant of what their children are doing.

Wow the police can be really effective when they want!!Telling parents to control children is really coming to the defence of the residents.

.It's the same all over Belfast, it's no different in the West. SF will tell the old to go to the police, and its the same result. Lets all shrug it off since its the same all over. At least its equal treatment.

David get a grip.
How can you admire someone who defends another.
Look at where that got us in NI. No we must get these ruffins into positions of power in order to make them grow up.Punishment is not the answer.
Remember that as humans evolve some change at a slower pace. It is these unfortunates we need to help by giving them housing etc all free.
We need to change their environments. Look at Learco Chindamo and what the environment did to him.

Let them commit the crime and them we can get our agencies to step in and help them out. Thats the answer. You'll just drive crime underground the way you want us to go. That is just plain nuts.

We don't need guys like you poking your nose in where it is not wanted. Stick to what you know best and keep away from the real progressives in society.

I have a uncommon knack of always getting it right - so listen up. I was not sent to the Middle East not having a history of rightness behind me.

Cheers Tony - nice to know we attract the best here on ATW.

Well done to John. He probably didn't hit the little bastard hard enough.

Unfortunately, doing the right thing can be very dangerous these days. A young lad was stabbed to death in Dublin a couple of weeks or so ago when he intervened to stop a scumbag assaulting his girlfriend.

David Vance -

He was right, of course. It will always be right, morally, to intervene. It also happens to be the right thing for the thug too. Humans have known always that corrective punishment is good for the wicked. For this reason it's always right, socially, to step in.

Incidentally, the Left usually invokes the weak, the poor, the downtrodden as an excuse to pick our pockets, pass new laws and increase the scope of government. Yet when it comes to having a go, taking responsibility and defending the weak, poor and downtrodden, many on the Left prefer the strong to do nothing and for the weak to be abandoned. How odd. One could almost conclude that it's the power of the state they care about and all that stuff about helping others is just a load of old tosh.

Typhoo -

Theres a war going on between yobs and the rest of us.

You can put arrange the police against us also. These aren't isolated cases. The police is now nothing more than a political instrument of a ruling state which is explicitly against the British people. They are not of us any more and not on our side.

Pete,

Genuine question here, you would like the least amount of government control/interference possible yeah ?

Are those views Anarchist in nature, or is it that you believe that governments are required but that they should be as light weight as possible with the least amount of interference in peoples lives ?

Would government be limited to foreign affairs and security, with education, and other social aspects of modern governments left to individuals ?

Where does the line between the person and government get drawn ?

Im not trying to be a prat on this, just interested on your views on where governments should draw the line

By the way, that man was of course correct to defend the woman. Its sickening that the perp should be the one with the law on his side.

Kloot -

I wouldn't advocate anarchism at all. I believe that humans are sovereign individuals and any attempt to coerce them into behaviour against their will is morally wrong. Needless to say, I regard the collective will, as expressed through democratically elected government, as having no authority over an individual acting in his own interest and not harming others.

Before anyone leaps up with a quote of mine from months ago to prove what a hypocrite I am - no, I don't always stick rigidly to that principle.

I regard government as necessary only for those actions it is impossible to achieve by acting individually in our own interests. The enforecement of contracts and national defence are two obvious and important examples of where collective effort is required.

The day I assume power is the day I will abolish 90% of government activity at a stroke. The DTi, Health, Science & Education, Culture, Media & Sport, Environment - they will all go. Government has no legitimate business commenting on any such things.

Throughout the 20th Century and into the 21st, government has taxed (naturally, I beleive stolen) trillions upon trillions from the British people. This is not money merely confiscated and taken out of the economy. These vast sums represent money foregone. Money which would have been spent exactly how we required if left in our pockets. Money which would have been saved and invested and made to work for us individually and beneficial to the economy.

How the economy would have benefitted I have no idea, but it would be a vastly greater economy than it is today. Government then turned around on us and used our own money to infantilise millions upon millions in successive generations. Today alone, millions are illiterate, innumerate, unemployed and unemployable because of government. Tomorrow it will be more.

The question in my mind is not how I justify my views, which I don't mind prattling on about. The important question, after a century of relentless growth in government, is how advocates of collective, big government dare look at themselves in the mirror and not feel shame.

Pete, Thanks for taking the time to respond. Interesting stuff. Busy at work at the moment but ill try comment later.

I question why a key witness and CCTV didnt prevent this going to court. The guys lawyer must have sucked. It doesnt add up.

Myself +1 were involved in something like this situation stepping in to do what was right and the issue was resolved at police level.

Having arrested the wrong person based on a false allegation, the investigating officer reviewed CCTV and witness statements with the (free) lawyer and concluded it in advance of any court issues. Yes it took time but we knew we were in the right. We decided not to proceed with charges ourselves in the end.

Something stinks here. If there was CCTV evidence and a witness, it shouldn't have gone to trial. Like most things, the media isn't telling us something.

However, on the story as reported, yes, the defendent did the right thing. Firstly in intervening and secondly in punching his assailant. He threatened to knock him out, which could mean death if he knocked his head and he would have no way of defending himself while he was out. Thus, it would have been legitimate to use lethal force but thankfuly he only broke his jaw. Good on him, give him a medal etc.

But like I said, I suspect we're not being told the whole story.

Kloot,

I'm on the same wave length as Pete, only I'm more consistant in my objection to coerscion.

Typhoo..
i think Pete M has already touched this, but its not just the yobs we (normal, law-abiding folks) are at war with,, but also the elitist intelligensia have "triangulated" away from us to create a second front.
And unfortunately they have the police operating as their private army,, enforcing their peecee worldview at our expense.
On self-defence matters, we are uncomfortably kebabed, ... skewered at both ends, between the immoral forces of the yobs/islamists/criminals, and their self-regarding apologists, the liberal authoritarians.

Aren't yobs just backward boys?

surely . yobs are backward sboy?
..and backward boys are syob.

Gudone,

I agree entirely.

Pete/CL

The problem I have with government lite, is that it relies on having faith in society not breaking down in the eventuality of the government withdrawing its influence on large areas of public life.

Regulation and law is introduced to counter the fact that given a free hand, companies and people do not tend to work in the best interest of all or to consider other peoples interests.

Companies, without regulation would operate with no barriers to achieving the profit they crave. Consumer rights would not exist without government intervention. In other words, if companies could be trusted to operate in "good" mode, then the regulation would not apply.

Same applies to society in away. This is my own beliefs now, but, without laws, I believe society would break down. The government is responsible for crafting legislation. It is much easier for a government to write 100 laws that deal with stupidly minor stuff then it is for a government to craft one law that tackled a really serious issue. Inevitably, governments avoid large reforms of law as they are..well just not competent to do so. Yes, they will get advice on the constitutionality of such law, still, were the advice wrong, they would be in a mess, and politicians just dont like getting caught in those scenarios. So instead, they introduce hundreds of petty laws.

The problem then is that all of these laws/regulations need enforcement and that provides the introduction of extra tax burdens top of the tax already raised for defence and other important functions.

Bit of a rushed post as im dodging between meetings here at the moment. Ill try clarify more later

Isn't a yob just a backward boy?:-)

Kloot,

I'd be happy to discuss this with you (way too big a topic to cover on here I think) via email if you like. Drop me one at cynical.libertarian@gmail.com and I'll explain what I believe and stuff :)

Pete Moore,

"I regard government as necessary only for those actions it is impossible to achieve by acting individually in our own interests."

Newsflash: so does pretty much everyone else.

Where people differ is in how broad a view they take of what constitutes a public good. The classic fault lines being things like roads, education and medicine.

"The enforecement of contracts and national defence are two obvious and important examples of where collective effort is required."

And people do not even agree on that much.

Isn't a yob just a backward boy?:-)

LOL. Almost.

Kloot -

The problem I have with government lite, is that it relies on having faith in society not breaking down in the eventuality of the government withdrawing its influence on large areas of public life.

Why such a low opinion of your fellow man, Kloot? Civil Society is perfectly able to manage it's own affairs without the guiding hand of government. Come to think of it, why such a low opinion of yourself? It may be that you aren't polite, honest and civil in your dealings with others. If not, you already are a bad person under an already authoritarian regime. If you are a good man then believe me, you really won't turn bad under small government. You seem to believe that you cannot operate without politicians telling what to say, think and do. Or is only others who are incapable?

Regulation and law is introduced to counter the fact that given a free hand, companies and people do not tend to work in the best interest of all or to consider other peoples interests.

Quite right too. But then only a second's thought reveals that when all act in their own interests, the common good is the natural result. Adam Smith famously figured this out 400 years ago:

" It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages."

Companies, without regulation would operate with no barriers to achieving the profit they crave.

Yes! Fantastic!

Consumer rights would not exist without government intervention. In other words, if companies could be trusted to operate in "good" mode, then the regulation would not apply.

But how does government know what you want? Did it ask you? The greatest pressure on any firm is always applied by customers going to competitors. As for government regulation, it was government which allowed limited liability entities, allowed for shareholders and directors to evade responsibilities and for a few gargantuan companies to dominate others in most commercial sectors (don't confuse 'big business' and capitalism). Britain alone is made up of hundreds of thousands of individual businesses, meeting a demand from clients or going out of business.

So can you point out to one single example of a 'good' government anywhere at any time? Sure, some companies (the individuals therin) have done some bad things, but the overall record in giving us what we want and creating wealth is astonishingly good. On the other hand, every war, every genocide, every pogrom or any notable slaughter, every carpet-bombing, every army sent against against civilians - has all been done because of government. Why automatically view private interests with suspicion, yet ignore the record of government power, which in the 20th Century alone enabled the slaughter of hundreds of millions of humans?

Same applies to society in away. This is my own beliefs now, but, without laws, I believe society would break down.

I refer you to my first response - civil society is perfectly capable of managing its own affairs. The English Common Law, which protected for 1000 years, wasn't created by government. It's a creature of the people seeking justice themselves. Parliament never made a law against murder - that provision comes from the Common Law. It reflects the very morality of the British people and the society we formed. And really, you won't turn bad if politicians aren't around to make you good. Or does that only apply to others?

The government is responsible for crafting legislation. It is much easier for a government to write 100 laws that deal with stupidly minor stuff then it is for a government to craft one law that tackled a really serious issue.

Yes, so why encourage the buggers?

Inevitably, governments avoid large reforms of law as they are..well just not competent to do so. Yes, they will get advice on the constitutionality of such law, still, were the advice wrong, they would be in a mess, and politicians just dont like getting caught in those scenarios. So instead, they introduce hundreds of petty laws.

The problem then is that all of these laws/regulations need enforcement and that provides the introduction of extra tax burdens top of the tax already raised for defence and other important functions.

Yes, so why encourage them? As important is the corrosive effect of intrusive government on civil society. The infantilisation of the British people over 50 years is plain. We were the energetic, imaginative, brave and proud nation that built the Greatest Empire Ever Seen. Now, half of our youth cannot get out of bed in the morning. We were a nation of families and natural, paternal authority. Now, too many deliquants have no father at home to answer to. Were a nation of polite, gentle Britons with stern laws based on a stern morality. Government waged war on the morality, abolished the stern laws and decreed that our safety must be taken into the hands of the benevolent state. No need for me to point out what happened there then.

Pete Moore wrote:

"Civil Society is perfectly able to manage it's own affairs without the guiding hand of government."

And yet he says we need government for enforcement of contracts.

"It may be that you aren't polite, honest and civil in your dealings with others."

Maybe he is a TV sponger like you!

"On the other hand, every war, every genocide, every pogrom or any notable slaughter, every carpet-bombing, every army sent against against civilians - has all been done because of government."

In fact pretty much all of these that are not attributable to the breakdown of, or lack of, the rule of law can be traced to some lunatic who thought he knew best and was above the law.

"The classic fault lines being things like roads, education and medicine."

Education and medicine are not public goods. A public good is one which is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Education and medicine are neither. When I consume a bottle of medicine, there is one less bottle for everyone else. When I go to school, there is one less place in that school for everyoe else. So they are rivalrous goods. I can be prevented from consuming medicine without paying because the pharmicist or doctor will not hand it over. I can be prevented from consuming education by the teacher not letting me into the classroom. So they are excludable.

Roads have been debated but most would now agree that they're not public goods either: if I drive on the road, there is one less spot on it for everyone else, as evidenced by congestion. I can be stopped from using the road if I have not paid by traffic officers throwing me off (like they do now if I drive without a tax disk or whatever). This is also aided by modern technology: CCTV, GPS etc. Toll booths can also be used on motorways as an alternative means of exclusion.

An example of a public good is a fireworks display: many people from miles around will see the fireworks and there is no way to charge them for the benefits gained so it is non-excludable. It is also non-rivalrous because one person seeing the display does not mean that one less person can see them. Clean air is another: my breathing clean air does not reduce, in any measurable way, the amount of clean air available for others. Neither can we exclude people from having clean air without paying for it - we can't even own meaningful quantities of clean air, let alone charge for access.

It should also be noted that the necessity for government provision is not inherent in a public good. Clean air is provided by nature, by commercial tree farms, privately owned forests and farms etc. Firework displays are provided by individuals, by firms at parties and events, and by charities (in my area there are two large fireworks displays put on each year, paid for by charity), and the same charity rund several other displays in surrounding areas.

"And yet he says we need government for enforcement of contracts."

Enforcing contracts that we have chosen to enter into is hardly guidance. Guidance would be telling us what contracts we can and cannot enter into, like now.

Everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to deciding how much govt. they want. Nobody, and yes I include Pete Moore in that really wants 'small' govt. They just want the govt to think and act the way they would.

"Nobody, and yes I include Pete Moore in that really wants 'small' govt"

I beg to disagree. If I could rewrite the way government is run in this country, the result would be a state machine ~1% of the size of what we have now. That's small government by any measure. Equally, neither would it enforce my own particular feelings on others. For instance, personally, I feel it is morally wrong to cheat on your wife, but adultery would not be illegal. I think it is stupid to smoke, put smoking would not be illegal. I think certain types of violent pornography are disgusting, but I would not ban them. etc etc.

Cl

Then maybe you are more principled than Mr Moore who has here on ATW in the past demanded that govt. should ban same sex adoptions, should return to traditional Judaeo Christian moral teachings in school, should clamp down hard on Islamic militant proselytising, should severely restrict immigration , and Asylum and advocated various other traditional Conservative BIG govt. interferences. He doesn't really want small govt. just small in some areas and big in others, just like most of us.

CL,

Im afraid you would find me way out of my depth when it comes to this topic. Its not an area I can claim any real knowledge, but I do find it interesting to hear your views.

Ive my own views on government and its failures, especially when it comes to the public service and the taxation required to fund it.

Colm -

They just want the govt to think and act the way they would.

Well, yes. Don't worry, when I take over you'll be free to do pretty much what you like. The flipside is that my government won't steal from others to bail you out when you cock up. Horror of horrors, I won't even tell you how much fruit and veg you should eat. Call it what you want, it'll be a saner world.

Dog eat dog.

CL,

""The classic fault lines being things like roads, education and medicine."

Education and medicine are not public goods. A public good is one which is non-rivalrous and non-excludable."

As I said, some people take a broader view of public goods than others and these are examples in the middle.

Some medicine is a public good because health certainly is. Control of infectious diseases is an obvious example. Everyone benefits from healthy people in the workforce and for that matter socially. But of course nobody wants to pay for it.

Similarly, education helps with the "enlightened" part of "enlightened self-interest". An educated electorate is a public good as is an educated workforce. A society full of enlightened, farsighted and cluey people is better than a society full of, well, libertarians :-)

Not only that but a society where ones health and education does not depend unduly on whether your family are rich or poor is arguably a public good.

Any time there is potential for freeloading or externalisation of costs there is this kind of debate.

CL,

Forgot to respond to this:

"And yet he says we need government for enforcement of contracts."

Enforcing contracts that we have chosen to enter into is hardly guidance. Guidance would be telling us what contracts we can and cannot enter into, like now.

Enforcing contracts is hardly having faith in your fellow man either. Anyone who implies we shouldn't have a low opinion of our fellow man (so we don't need government), even as they fundamentally assume that people won't keep their promises and contracts (so we do need government), is clearly talking out of both sides of their mouth.

People are basically good, but they aren't angels.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
- James Madison

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."

"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power."

"Feeling good about government is like looking on the bright side of any catastrophe. When you quit looking on the bright side, the catastrophe is still there."

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

"If government were a product, selling it would be illegal."

"The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop."

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

Yep, PJ O'Rourke puts James Madison in his place. Vote O'Rourke.

Thay are good quotes Pete I must admit.

Pete Moore,

I like P.J. O'Rourke too, although H.L. Mencken and Jefferson have better quotes.

But anyway you already conceded government is necessary to enforce contracts. Did you come to that conclusion because you thought people would keep their promises without the help of government?

Why such a low opinion of your fellow man, [Pete Moore]? Civil Society is perfectly able to manage it's own affairs without the guiding hand of government. Come to think of it, why such a low opinion of yourself? It may be that you aren't polite, honest and civil in your dealings with others. If not, you already are a bad person under an already authoritarian regime. If you are a good man then believe me, you really won't turn bad under [no] government. You seem to believe that you cannot operate without politicians telling what to say, think and do. Or is only others who are incapable?

That was your argument, was it not?

I loved how, when asked about his politics, Pen Jillete said "I'm a libertarian... which is another word for nut ;)"

Some more O'Rourke:

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

"One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license."

"It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money."

And my favourite libertarian quote, from Will Rogers:

"Just be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."

Frank O'Dwyer -

But anyway you already conceded government is necessary to enforce contracts.

Why yes I did. I also said to Kloot that I'm no anarchist.

Did you come to that conclusion because you thought people would keep their promises without the help of government?

I came to that conclusion when I realised that the legitimate functions of government are only those that cannot possibly be done individually or by free association of like-minded individuals.

People do keep promises without a gun being put to their head, but sometimes for some people you really need a gun. Ask my wife.

Pete Moore,

[on why government is necessary to enforce contracts]

"I came to that conclusion when I realised that the legitimate functions of government are only those that cannot possibly be done individually or by free association of like-minded individuals."

And your reason for concluding that people need to be forced to keep their contracts (promises) is....?

And your reason for concluding that people need to be forced to keep their contracts (promises) is....?

Wrong premise. Most Britons don't need to be coerced into it.

And now, I will no longer play this tedious game of yours Frank. I will depart the stage. The spotlight remains on, the stage is yours, step up and have the last word.

Pete Moore,

"And your reason for concluding that people need to be forced to keep their contracts (promises) is....?

Wrong premise. Most Britons don't need to be coerced into it."

Make up your mind whether you think government is necessary to enforce contracts or not, then get back to us.

If it is necessary, then explain your dim view of your fellow man.

If it is not necessary, then explain why you said it was necessary.

But I see you run away calling names again rather than explain the obvious contradictions in your pronouncements.

CL,

"Just be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."

There are plenty of places you can go to find little or no government. Of course they are all pretty grim, which is why anarcho-capitalists are invariably found whining about government while enjoying the benefits of it.

It's like those people who say that such and such is perfectly safe for human consumption while being strangely reluctant to prove it by eating a bowl of it themselves.

There's plenty of places with lots of government where it sucks. There's lots of places where there's no government where it sucks. I'm not aware of anywhere where property rights are universally respected, government or no, that sucks.

CL,

I don't think anybody is arguing that large government isn't dangerous. The point is only that what you consider 'small government' may be too small, and just as dangerous to freedom as large govt.

By the way are you aware of any place where property rights are respected and there is no government? I am aware of only one instance in history, Pennsylvania 1681.

Pretty brief and pretty small scale, but apparently it resisted all attempts to govern and tax it (and now this community is reduced to just Troll and Monica :-)

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the Human Rights Act? How would human rights be protected in your utopia?

Utopia is a highly innacurate term. To think of a libertarian world/state as perfect is wrong. I know you don't think it would be perfect, but I mean that's not even the idea. I don't think it would be perfect. There would be poor people, there'd be unhappy people, people would get sick, some would die, people would be murdered, stuff would get stolen. All of this is part of living in an imperfect world. Libertarianism isn't the perfect way. It is only, I believe, the best way to allow people to be safe, prosperous, happy and free.

As for examples of succesful instances of anarchism, 1681 may be one. The Native Americans got on ok without government, as did (and do) many other tribal cultures. Pirates, are perhaps the best example in fact! Put aside their outward-facing crimes and look at the insular society on-board their ships and they actually had a very succesful and highly advanced system. But then I am not arguing in favour of no government, only for smaller government, for government to confine itself to enforcing property rights. There's a world of difference.

On human rights, as far as I'm concerned there is one overriding human right: property. You own yourself, and everything you can peaceably acquire without fraud. Whatever you own is yours and, accepting that you do not limit anyone elses freedom to do as they please with their stuff, you may do as you wish with your stuff. Other 'rights' like free speech are just specific cases of you doing what you want with your own stuff (lips, printing press, keyboard, whatever) without hurting anyone else. Every human right I can think of falls under property rights. Of course, some people say you have a 'right' to put a gun to someone's head and demand that they give you something or perform you some service, but this is wrong.

Human rights, property rights, whatever you want to call them, would defended just as they are now, by laws. And of course you can protect your own rights as defined by law. Except "I demand that you, the government, put a gun to this person's head and make him give me a job" is not a human right, stuff like that.

To be quite honest, I've never understood exactly what the human rights act grants people. I suspect a lot of it is not what I would consider a human right and is more akin to the above example.

On the subject of "human rights", I think I'll copy and paste a comment I posted on another blog this evening:

I shall put on my best Margaret Thatcher accent for this, but I mean it seriously:

There is no such thing as "human rights". Instead, there is responsibility and reward, and conversely, crime and punishment.
The law has no business restricting us by setting out our "rights", and even worse, by making these "rights" apply universally to all, making no distinction between the innocent and the criminal. To do so is in fact evil and against the very notion of justice. The Human Rights Act is, I believe, an EVIL piece of legislation. It grants no further protection to the law-abiding than they already had in the first place; indeed it robs the innocent of protection from the lawless, by affording the lawless "rights" which by their actions they do not deserve to have.
All the law ever needs concern itself with is "human wrongs"; to say "this, this and this are illegal. If you do such deeds, you shall be punished in this manner". Such a framework is all that is required to protect the "rights" of the innocent.

CL,

"Utopia is a highly innacurate term. To think of a libertarian world/state as perfect is wrong."

Fair enough. But then it is not reasonable to criticise government for not being perfect.

"But then I am not arguing in favour of no government, only for smaller government, for government to confine itself to enforcing property rights. There's a world of difference.

On human rights, as far as I'm concerned there is one overriding human right: property."

It is true that with some gymnastics you can reduce most if not all rights to property rights. The problem then is that such a broad meaning of property rights is not universally agreed, and if you take such a view you are, again, up against the fact that some people take a broader view of public goods, freedom, and what is "harmful", than others.

Who owns the public health? Who owns children? Who owns education (or the public clue if you prefer)? Who defines harm? If you educate your children it is good for everyone. But if you do not educate your children then we all have to suffer your ignorant brats.

If you recall we had a debate recently which you resolved by saying that nobody owns airspace to the edge of the atmosphere...but this is not a fact of nature and merely something you pulled out of your ass to engineer the pre-conceived conclusion you favored. This is always the way when libertarian views are challenged...invariably after a lot of gymnastics we wind up at something not far from the present system of government, except that it implements *their* policies.

"To be quite honest, I've never understood exactly what the human rights act grants people."

As far as I can see the HRA restricts the power of public bodies and that's all it does. It only applies to public bodies. Yet, there is scarcely an advocate of "small govenment" here that does not demand its immediate repeal. The issues they cite with it are all examples of government having, in their view, too little power.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the Human Rights Act? How would human rights be protected in your utopia?

1. I'll take the English Common Law, thanks. A creature of the people of England, it provided all the rights we needed until government decided to replace it with a foreign and inferior concept of law.

2. It's not my neighbour or the fella down the street who wants to deprive me of habeus corpus, or the right to be judged by my peers, or who wants to record my every movement and transcation, or make me carry id like I was some peasant in a third world communist hellhole. Government wants to do all that. Government is the threat to my liberties.

3. 'Utopia'? You just don't get it. Advocates of small government have no interest in creating a utopia. Whoever wants one has to get off their backsides and create their own. Life might be hell for me under severely limited government, but at least I'll have the opportunity to make it better for me.

It's you commies who think of a utopia. You think that because you think people are perfectable. That's why you meddle in their lives, tell them they cannot carry out simple acts - because they're not to your taste. And God help them if they disobey, becasue you'll punish people for not trimming their lives to your instructions. Well, we all know what that philosophy underpins and I'd have thought humanity would have had enough of that.

Clearly not. The urge to control the lives of others really is a mental illness.

Pete Moore,

"I'll take the English Common Law, thanks. A creature of the people of England"

Just like government. The Law is part of government.

"it provided all the rights we needed "

Unless you were a slave.

"Government is the threat to my liberties."

That large government is a threat to liberties is not in dispute. It is however just as true that too small or no government is a threat to liberty.

"Life might be hell for me under severely limited government, but at least I'll have the opportunity to make it better for me."

Unless you don't.

"It's you commies who think of a utopia. You think that because you think people are perfectable."

I hope you kept the receipt for your mind-reading courses.

Turns out you're really rather poor at it.

"Fair enough. But then it is not reasonable to criticise government for not being perfect."

I certainly don't expect government to be perfect but I do expect it to confine itself to enforcing property rights and I do expect it to be reasonably good at it. When government fails to enforce property rights in a significant way, or when it tries to do something else, I do complain. Usually it fails at everything else and so it's useful to point this out. If people recognise that government invariably produces the exact opposite effect that most of the well-meaning proponents of larger government intend, then less government may seem more appealing, even if they cannot reconcile themselves with the absolute immorality of the initiation of force. It's also fun :P

"The problem then is that such a broad meaning of property rights is not universally agreed, and if you take such a view you are, again, up against the fact that some people take a broader view of public goods, freedom, and what is "harmful", than others."

I never said it was simple ;) But I'd wager the satute books in a libertarian nation would be only a fraction of the size of those today. 1% perhaps (not looked into that, just wild guess).

Some areas, I believe, should be decided democratically but there must also be constitutional limitations on the lee-way allowed to democracy. Seeing generations of democrats vote themselves into tyranny has taught us that unfettered democracy is hardly a smart way to run government.

For instance, I've mentioned before on ATW the libertarian take on abortion: if a fetus is a person, it's wrong, if a fetus is part of the mother's body, it's ok. I take the latter view but the former is equally valid. This is an area where democracy can decide, it can decide when life starts. However, we cannot allow democracy to have the absolute say on when life starts. In that case it would be possible for 51% of people to say "life starts at age 3, so we can torture, rape and kill 2 year old children." So a constitution might define life as starting between conception and 26 weeks from conception, with the exact point defined by a vote every five years made by proportional representation. Something of that nature.

None of this is 'a fact of nature'. It (i.e. my feelings on what a constitution should define, how the world should be etc) is merely the conditions I feel most favourable to maximising human liberty, security and hapiness.

Oh and Frank: a friend of mine pointed out that medieval Iceland is another example of succesful anarchism. Don't blame me if that's wrong somehow, just passing on the message, but I will have a look at it sometime ;)