Government vs Personal Freedoms

[Icequeen]

Does someone have the right to buy harmful items/goods, even if it will have a bad effect on him/her?

Yes, some people self abuse and have no common sense. You can limit one thing but they'll find something else usually to replace it. Everything can be harmful, I think it would be hard to draw the line after awhile.
 
Should there be a military draft?

No. Not unless the sons and daughters of those in charge of the mess are first in line and receive the same treatment as the rest. Not going to happen.

Is paying a tax an assault on personal liberty?

Yes and no. But all these taxes are starting to put a damper on how much liberty I can actually afford to have anymore.

How much free speech should there be before government intervenes, e.g. denying the Holocaust, racist language.

I believe in free speech unless they can't shut up about it and are making a complete nuisance of themselves and in turn hindering the free speech of others.

Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?

Yes, to a certain grade level, with home schooling available. Only took mine 3 days of kindergarten before he was ready to "drop out".  You need a certain level of knowledge to function in the world.

[TheoK]

Since Scrap left, I'm the only freedom loving person here 

[odeon]

Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?

Yes, because without any schooling, people are left disabled in a society that is highly literate. It is the duty of society, and of parents, to make it possible for people to live in the society.

Agreed. At least basic schooling should be mandatory--kids that age should not be allowed to decide.

[odeon]

Lit, what is government?  My simplistic definition is giving someone authority over some parts of your life.  Government includes courts, roads, sanitation, etc. 

If General Foods decided to put arsenic in their corn, how would you receive compensation without courts?  Without out courts, how do you think a weak person/family would be able to manage against the bullies of the world (not that it's such a great system, but it is a system.)

From past history, someone has to keep up the roads, levees, organize the nightsoil disposition, etc.  There is no way that Holland and the Mississippi River could have been contained without government.

What's wrong is that a government is an hierarchy forced on people by violence. You could very well have a society with rules and courts, but it should be totally voluntarily.

How the good guys should defend themselves against the bad guys? Like in the Old West: everyone is armed and prepared to defend themselves. In most of Europe and even parts of the US the state monopoly on violence is a hindrance for people to defend themselves. If I kill a burglar raping my mum in her own bedroom, I risk jail in this country. Absolutely intolerable.

So, because there are flaws in the legislation, the whole concept of government is wrong? There is nothing in this world without flaws.

No, it's fundamentally wrong that someone should rule adult persons by their sound minds without their consent. I'm very surpised that that thought doesn't even seem to have struck most people at least once or twice in their lives.

A group of people will, even without official rules, form a group with people who lead, and people who follow. If said system is regulated, it is possible to claim a right, when something goes wrong. Not that it always works, but, the option is there. Without official rules, it would require very strong social skills to claim a right, when things go wrong.

Such a society would always favour only the strongest. Less fortunate individuals would be marginalised at best. But societies would always form because it is in or nature to live in flocks.

[odeon]

Since Scrap left, I'm the only freedom loving person here 

Awwww, shut up.

[TheoK]

But seriously: you mean the current system doesn't favour the strongest? If a billionaire and a bum are both murdered, do the cops put the same effort into solving both cases? Of course not.

When the Swedish prime minister was murdered, they even changed the law in 2011, so that the time of prosecution would not end 25 years after the murder was committed, which has always before been the case in Sweden.

[odeon]

But seriously: you mean the current system doesn't favour the strongest? If a billionaire and a bum are both murdered, do the cops put the same effort into solving both cases? Of course not.

Seriously, where did I say that the current system does not favour the strongest? Of course it does, but not nearly as much as your anarchist society would. There is no way such a society would even begin to support the rights of a minority unless that minority had something to offer. And let's face it, most minorities don't.

When the Swedish prime minister was murdered, they even changed the law in 2011, so that the time of prosecution would not end 25 years after the murder was committed, which has always before been the case in Sweden.

And they did the right thing, but for the wrong reason.

[TheoK]

We should buy some land somewhere and start an Aspie anarchist society! 

[TA]

Where should the line be between these?  Some things to consider:

Does someone have the right to buy harmful items/goods, even if it will have a bad effect on him/her?
 
Should there be a military draft? 

Is paying a tax an assault on personal liberty?

How much free speech should there be before government intervenes, e.g. denying the Holocaust, racist language.

Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?

Just a few thoughts I came up with, please don't feel limited to these areas.

Yes, a story about a mother buying raw milk comes to mind, but I would have to find it.

No, unless WWIII is about to happen.

Governments need taxes to function, but it does not need to be ridiculous

Free speech is pretty much absolute in my book.

As long as school does not cause psychological damage, children should go.

[bodie]

Hmmm.  I suppose i need time to think about most of it.  The one thing i am damn sure about is i believe i have the absolute right to buy, acquire, cultivate whatever substances i want to put in my body.  Food, drugs, alcohol, medicine etc.  If i want to fill my body with  junk -  MY CHOICE...or at least it should be.

Apart from illegal drugs that the government have decided i shouldn't have, one thing i get annoyed about is the fact that i can't just go and buy antibiotics or other meds.  An example of this is back in the time when i used to get tonsillitis several times a year.  If i felt it coming on and it was Saturday or Sunday then i would be fucked because i would have to wait for a doctor to give me a piece of paper saying i am ALLOWED to get these antibiotics.  Other times i have had to suffer from prolonged agony due to an abscess while waiting to see a dentist.   I resent having to do this because i know what i damn well need.

As for the rest....i will answer later, after giving it some thought.  Needless to say i am not an anarchist but i am getting tired of big brother taking charge of my life.  I get annoyed about the talk of ID cards -  well i won't carry one around.  No, i got nothing to hide.  Just on principal.  Government can just go and kiss my fat ass   (which incidentally is tattooed anyway therefore i am easily identifiable)   

[midlifeaspie]

Where should the line be between these?  Some things to consider:

Does someone have the right to buy harmful items/goods, even if it will have a bad effect on him/her?
 
Should there be a military draft? 

Is paying a tax an assault on personal liberty?

How much free speech should there be before government intervenes, e.g. denying the Holocaust, racist language.

Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?

Just a few thoughts I came up with, please don't feel limited to these areas.

Yes
If needed
No
The current US laws are fine.  Anything short of impeding another's personal liberty or safety.
Yes