Liberalism Defined.

Blackflag: John Locke has said “the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.”

Kasmic: Everything about John Locke's beliefs can be applied circumstantially. My disagreement is actually a continuation of an earlier debate I had with @admin , where he advocated that individual choices should be restricted if they are bad for the individual.

If someone can do something that can cause another person besides himself harm, then that is when we need law. When I want to make a personal conscious decision based on my own beliefs and feelings, the law should not exist to stop me.

Is that fair or do you still disagree with that stance?

Blackflag: The way I see it, such a mutual forfeiture of rights is justified whenever there is a net benefit for all parties to the social contract of having that forfeiture. Just as murder laws are not elitist domination, so are government efforts to maximize freedom and equality the same. There is no need for exceptions.

Blackflag: Yes it can be controlled. And that is why I believe in the democracy that I know you totally hate

Blackflag: where he advocated that individual choices should be restricted if they are bad for the individual.
The way I remember it... I was actually advocating that drug use harms more than just the individual. On top of that, drugs reduce a person's capacity for individual liberty and this tends to undermine the long-run equality of greater communities.

admin: I love democracy, but I love constitutional democracies even more. The majority can be elites, authoritarians, and bullied loners with self confidence complexes which is why their powers need to be checked. Vote on wh

I was actually advocating that drug use harms more than just the individual. On top of that, drugs reduce a person's capacity for individual liberty and this tends to undermine the long-run equality of greater communities.
Yeah, and I argued that every action has larger repercussions but choosing to be personally affected by another persons bodily choices is ignorant, stubborn, and stone age.

Blackflag: Informal constitutions can be just as powerful, if not more powerful, than formal ones.

The way I see it, such a mutual forfeiture of rights is justified whenever there is a net benefit for all parties to the social contract of having that forfeiture.
There are always people who are exceptions to the rules. We will never see a complete plurality of people who support forfeiting a personal liberty. If 90% of citizens vote to forfeit a liberty, then maybe you have a case. Since few things in life 90% of people would want to forfeit exists, I would tell others to screw off and live their own lifes.

Informal constitutions can be just as powerful, if not more powerful, than formal ones.
Sure they can. If you are living in a fantasy world in which stupidity is iological.
There is no such thing as an informal constitution. A constitution very clearly outlines the rights and given actions of a government. Informal would be like Israel where they have laws and guidelines set, but can choose to ignore them through a quick vote.

Blackflag: I bet 90% would forfeit the liberty to murder.

Blackflag: If someone can do something that can cause another person besides himself harm, then that is when we need law. When I want to make a personal conscious decision based on my own beliefs and feelings, the law should not exist to stop me.

I do think this is "fair" though what actions can an individual make that don't affect others?

admin: You really are daft. Do I need to restate something through a 100 posts,?derp, quit it!
Murder is illegal and justifiably so because almost every human being wants it illegal. Live with it.

Now what about all the other liberties you want to take away through abusive unconstitutional voting? Suicide, drug use, ect.

Blackflag: Informal would be like Israel where they have laws and guidelines set, but can choose to ignore them through a quick vote.
Informal would be like New Zealand, where we have rules and guidelines not written down on paper, so there are no possible loopholes - if somebody decides to be a prick, we generally just get them drunk and tell them to get lost (for example, when our former prime minister Robert Muldoon refused to stop being prime minister after losing an election).

admin: Informal would be like New Zealand, where we have rules and guidelines not written down on paper, so there are no possible loopholes - if somebody decides to be a prick, we generally just get them drunk and tell them to get lost (for example, when our former prime minister Robert Muldoon refused to stop being prime minister after losing an election).
So your system allows for people to be pricks and abuse your rules and guidelines? Sounds like New Zealand has a broken system of government which makes it easy for dictators and elites to rise to power.

Create a constitution and you create a barrier that restricts the actions of politicians significantly.

Blackflag: Now what about all the other liberties you want to take away through abusive unconstitutional voting?
Hey, you're the one who wants a 90% plurality on everything.

How about every other law ever written? I could go list them all probably. I don't support all laws, but any law is an exercise is mutual forfeiture of rights.

I bet you'll start calling yourself a libertarian soon enough.

admin: Hey, you're the one who wants a 90% plurality on everything.

How about every other law ever written? I could go list them all probably. I don't support all laws, but any law is an exercise is mutual forfeiture of rights.

I bet you'll start calling yourself a libertarian soon enough
Are they social liberties and do their actions have direct, immediate, and clear negative consequences on another individual besides the person engaging in the given liberty? If not then they are irrelevant, just like your modern concept of fascism.

Blackflag: Absolutely not. Our system of checks and balances gets everything done much better. You can try to rise to power but you pretty much have to already dominate. Formal constitutions, by contrast, have an APPALLING record of dictators and elites rising to power.

Blackflag: Why direct & immediate? Very arbritrary criteria. Very few torts would be covered by that, and that's a huge part of modern common law.

admin: Absolutely not. Our system of checks and balances gets everything done much better. You can try to rise to power but you pretty much have to already dominate. Formal constitutions, by contrast, have an APPALLING record of dictators and elites rising to power.
That is because their constitutions weren't established and honored. You'll see a much bigger reaction from the population if a politician in the UK or US breaks the constitution than a country like El Salvador.

Absolutely not. Our system of checks and balances gets everything done much better.
New Zealand after a colonization period of 150 years has failed to gain the economic traction and population growth of other post colonial nations. New Zealand can hardly be considered a minor power. That's fine, but in an alternate history ran by smart people, New Zealand would have 15 million citizens and a strong trading economy.