DISQUS

Just saying he is the least evil doesn't work here - I would like to know why do you think that. I'm seriously doubt this statement, and I wrote about it a little bit in the past in Hebrew. But I would seriously would like to here argument to counter my position.
I didn't know about Samizdata and I'm going to add it to my over 500 feeds :)

I have no problem with dropping aid from airplanes, although I question how effective it might be. I just don't believe in invading places in order to save them :)

I would not vote for McCain regardless of his VP choice, but I'm really interested to know why would you vote for him. He is not, in any way, a small government advocate.

Paultard,
I deleted your message about my bad spelling. You are welcome to post it again, without the use of certain words you used in the deleted comment. I don't mind being reprimanded for bad spelling but I will not allow the use of certain words here.

Ingrid,
I don't really worry about the Muslim immigrants. The problem is with the hosting countries and cultures. If Europe was confident enough to protect its culture, and mostly to protect human rights most of this problem would not exist.

Do you think it is mainly the economy? or do you think there is another factor that I missed?

Elad,
Our discussion proves that my grandfather argument that a debate in possible only between those who agree, was correct :) That being said I will like to highlight some points we disagree on.
Firstly I disagree with your assessment that we don't have a real disagreement about the term "Free". I think our different approach is much more than semantics. But this is a subject for different discussion.
I also disagree with the argument that the slippery slope is a fallacy. We have a mountain of historical evidences, together with the understanding of how the regulatory process works to argue that the slippery slope is inherent to the regulation process. In addition any regulation, by its nature, limits liberties. One might argue that some limitations are important or even vital for maintaining the social order. I agree with this assessment when regulations aimed at protecting human rights. However I argue that any regulation that is out of that scope is - adding unnecessary power to the government and is less efficient than non-regulation. I am more likely to compromise and accept regulation when they are in the lower levels of government (i.e. city, county) than the federal government because their scope is limited and are more closely affect the interested population.
I would agree that our major disagreement is about the definition of rights and freedom. You defined freedom:

I extend the concept of freedoms to consider things you do not consider as freedoms at all. For example, an important type of freedom in my system is "freedom to be educated", which society balances with "freedom of property" (the freedom to not pay too much taxes) in order to decide to what extence public schooling should be funded by the taxpayer. I think that the right to be educated should be extended even to those that have no money. Similarly, I believe in the "freedom to be healthy", "freedom for a roof over your head", "freedom for a dignified life", etc. .

But why to stop here - why not to define freedom also as the right to be healthy (and than have the government dictate exactly how to keep you "healthy" ), or free to have proper housing? and proper transportation means or many other things that can make one life better? The vital difference that all of these require enslavement of someone else freedom. While "my" definition of freedom doesn't. You are confusing needs, desires and wants with rights and they are not the same. Rights and Freedom are innate and can be restricted by force - nobody need to "give" you the freedom to speech, but someone might restrict it.
Once we settle this difference of what constitute rights and freedom it is easier to understand why I don't think that you need to balance different rights, and that society has no moral legitimacy to restrict one's freedom.

I don't think that she was claiming that Greenspan doesn't make sense. He was the chairman of the Fed during her husband's presidency and was held, rightfully, in high regard. One can disagree with Greenspan's monetary policies but no one ever argued that he make no sense. I think that the reading of what she was saying (and that is the commonly understood reading) is that what he said is "above her head". This can be fine statement, although politically problematic, unless you are arguing that you have the knowledge and experience to "run" the economy.
By the way, I would argue that what she suggested as measure to handle the sub-prime crisis is even stronger evidence that  she is not qualified - but this is a different story :)
I don't target Clinton more harshly than the other candidates. I think that McCain and Clinton are equally dangerous. I wrote some of the reasons here and some in hebrew here.

Elad,
it seems that you are assuming that it is necessary for societies to flourish to be regulated by governments. This is the main fallacy of your argument since societies are better functioning when they are self regulated and are not coerced. Additionally you keep insist that something that is being payed through taxes is somehow "Free" while when it is being paid voluntarily it isn't. The only argument you make in favor of of coercing people to pay the tax for, lets keep the original example, gym service is that the high volume will reduce the price. You are ignoring the fact that for people that did not intended to use the service the price is still higher, You also ignore the ocean of evidences that demonstrate that public service are actually cost more, not less, despite the high volumes.
Lets keep examine the concept of "Free". Responding to my argument about fair exchange of values you wrote:

I don't see what fair exchange has anything to do with this issue. When I get service from a policeman or a judge, do I have fair exchange? Why is it reasonable in your system to have government employ judges and policemen and army, but not anyone else? Just because they keep money free?

but in fact soldiers, policemen and judges can't negotiate their compensation, they cannot go on a strike and when the state doesn't have enough of them it can draft (which is the ultimate coercion) its citizens to do these jobs. Does your utopian society based on slavery? Protecting Human Rights is the only moral justification for any government and is the base for the exceptions involved with the profession of soldiers, policemen etc. Free societies make an additional effort to minimize the coercion involved with those professions by making them voluntary and add social recognition, and benefits, to emphasize the importance the society see in those profession. expanding it to gym trainers will do the opposite than just society.
You also suggests a mix of

private trainers working alongside governmental ones

such mix cannot co-exist for two main reason: practically the government, by nature, is monopolistic entity (We can expand this point but for the purpose of the comment it will be as axiom). Therefore any industry that is being occupied by the government loose all its private "players" - if you believe that central, nationalized economy is better this is the route you are going to take. The second reason against the suggested mix is morally - since governments are, by nature, coercing entities - they are writing laws and enforcing regulations, expanding government involvement (and its coercion) to areas that aren't protection of Human Rights is immoral.

I think that the exact calibration is a matter for the public to decide.

but which public? in what level? should it be the entire country? the county? the neighborhood? and what if the majority of the public support measures like blocking content on the internet, not allowing same sex marriage and prayers in public schools? how do you ensure that only Your concept of what is good for the public is being coerced by the state?
The answer, of course, is to minimize the areas in which government is being involved. In other words, if you want to live in a free society you should be willing to live people alone to live their way and to set a very few limits on their freedom. The fact that your intentions are good, and their purpose is only to make everyone's life better doesn't change the fact that you are limiting peoples liberty. I'm sure that the religious parties in Israel believe, very much like you, that the limitation they suggest on other people's freedom are only going to make the society better. Why is your approach better?

 ...and after writing the long comment I saw this post which is worth reading.

<div>Our disagreement about what constitute "Free" is all but semantic. Realizing that someone's work has a value is essential - The teacher, the Doctor or the physical trainer at the gym providing a service which is valued somehow. Assuming that both of us agree that these people deserve fair compensation for their service, and that they aren't slave for our needs, than we both agree that none of these service is ever free. (It is important to note that compensation doesn't have to be money - but it must be agreed to without coercion - it can be money, feeling good about yourself or any other way that the human mind can create)</div><div>But as the service provider should not be coerced to provide service for less than she believe its worth, nobody should be coerced to pay (I'm using the term pay for any kind of exchange of values not only for money) more than they believe to be worthwhile. When something is being paid by taxation the voluntary provision of making the exchange fair doesn't exist anymore.</div><div>In addition you should prove that paying for services via taxes is more efficient than when paying voluntarily. I, obviously, will argue the opposite and provide a long list of groundwork and arguments to support my argument (and if you read this blog you can't escape from posts that argue exactly that:) ). But this is the less interesting approach, at least to me. For me the moral question is more important - and I think that it is immoral to take, at a gun point (at this is what taxes are), one's fruits of labor for the needs of other. I am big believer is charity, social interdependence and mutual responsibilities - however all of those must be voluntarily and without the distractive force of coercion.</div><div>I assume that you regard Tax as natural force, something that we are destained to live with (and at arbitrary rate). This is a grave mistake - the tax itself, its structure and its rate are all open for discussion. Many countries change the taxation structure, and its rate base on efficiency analysis. The question isn't the tax but the spending - once you conclude that the there is no room for government spending on anything but protecting human rights and on dispute resolutions (court system) - the question about the existence of taxes is solved.</div><div>One last note about the Daily Capitalist - I found some of their contributer to be extremely smart and knowledgeable. As a site with growing popularity, I guess, it attracts contributers with uneven level. This, however, should not shadow those who provides quality writing. Some of the contributers confuse fiscal conservatism with Capitalism and protection of certain policies as Capitalistic. The term itself is so misused that it many use it to attack any policy that involve someone with money. However contributers on the Daily Capitalist as Redler (with whom I disagree since his approach is the one that examine efficiency instead of morality ) and Gonzo are worth reading anytime.</div>

Elad,<div>You made some good points that I think deserve separate post. I will address here briefly only two:</div><div>1. It is a fallacy to call something that is funded by tax money "Free". It is morally and practically not free.</div><div>2. When you asking about how Libertarian envision the ideal society you need to define which Libertarian. Like many highly ideological movement the Libertarian tend to find interesting things to disagree on. The range of ideal societies is pretty wide and move from complete anarchism to state-rights Libertarians and classic liberals (which I believe to be closest to my vision). Practically I would like to see the center of gravity moved from the public sphere to to the private sphare - but this idea deserve a post.</div>

Eled,
A sign that your comment was pretty good one is that it made me think about it long after I response to it. I had asked myself is extremism is necessarily wrong and what constitute extremism. And in the back of my head was the famous quote of one of my political heroes (and I don't have many :) ):

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

You are correct Elad,  the position I express here sound extreme. But is it really? <div>The only real advantage that government has, is its monopoly on the legal means of coercion. When government passing a law it has the ability to enforce it. Do you think that it is proper to enforce gyms use, vitamins and other things that are "good for you"? You assume that these goodies are being given free, but this is a grave mistkae - you are paying for them the full amount when you pay taxes. However, you are loosing you ability to say "No, thanks".</div><div>Is going to the gym good for you? Maybe. But it is your decision! an attempt to force you limits your freedom in ways that are immoral.</div><div>You also suggest that the state should mandate use of tax money for education, healthcare and gyms and I wonder why did your list is so short? Why not housing, food (only healthy food obviously), furniture, cars etc? And why not let the state make sure that your behavior is moral (moral behavior is crucial for healthy society, isn't it?) So maybe that state should run a program that will suggest moral behavior? </div><div>I guess calling Clinton tyrannical seems extreme and unreasonable - but it isn't. </div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal"></span></div>

:)

I waited for your comment zoolish :) I was, and still is, waiting for a difference response from Ron Paul - a response of a statesman. <div>But lets examine this scandal on pure political level, without any moral judgment. The Campaign had to know that this scandal will break once Ron Paul start to get some real support. They had to be prepared for it, and better off bring the story by themselves. Would Ron Paul, or someone from his staff, come out with this story few months ago they could have control on the way it was interpreted.  So, even in pure political game, it doesn't look so good.</div>

Scott, Instead of being the troll that you are, why wouldn't you take a break and check my previous writing about Ron Paul and his campaign. After you done so you can come back and try to say something of substance. If the only thing you intend to do is ad-hominem attacks on me, at least use some real data.

J, Let me make it clear: I think that Ron Paul is a remarkable man, and a true statesman. I don't think that he is a racist, nor did I ever suggest that. All what I expect from him is to assure me as a supporter that those who wrote these newsletters are not part of the campaign. I would also like to hear why, for year, he did not disassociated and condemned those who betrayed his trust and used his name for these shameful newsletter. 

You better do your homework Scott. You can start with reading this on Reason. 
http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html

Scott,
I have no doubt that Ron Paul is not a racist. But he have to make clear that the people that wrote these newsletters (and I read them as well, it is more than one) has nothing to do with the campaign. The newsletters was Ron Paul "Private Property" - he owned it and benefited from it - and therefore he is responsible to what was written in these newsletters. The fact is that Ron Paul admitted that he has moral responsibility but he didn't do the necessary step to disassociate  himself from those who wrote the actual newsletters.

Richard,Your argument works both ways....In fact I can make a strong argument that limiting women right to choose and giving power to the states instead of the individual is not Libertarianism. I, unlike you didn't make this argument. I also didn't suggest that the newsletters were illegal, nor that the government should have do anything about them. However, and mostly because I am a libertarian, funding something and benefiting from it has significant meaning. And while I don't think that the government should be involved, I as a thinking individual should act.  By the way between Judas and Benedict Arnolds I guess I should be the first since I'm  Jewish :)  

Ingrid,
I sent you my e-mail.
As for your question - if you had asked this question few days ago I would answer that yes, I would vote for him. But now, I'm not sure. I'll publish something about this a little bit later.

Shame on you indeed :) I'll be happy to participate but not as Ron Paul supporter but as someone that is close to his position. I defer from Ron Paul on many issues - Right to choose, Foreign Policy (nuances), The rights of the states Vs. Individual rights and so on. My actions during this election season, including the trip to NH was to support the ideas of Liberty and not to promote a person.<div>If this is still in accordance with what you are looking for, I'll be happy to participate.</div><div></div>

Not a mystery just a short delay :)

We will do better than Taliban Mike!
By the way NH is beautiful, cold and far away but really beautiful.