Hva er liberalismen? FAQ

[Ducktoy]

Opphavsretten til et verk er regulert av åndsverkloven. Den som skaper et åndsverk har opphavsrett til verket. Åndsverk er i åndsverkloven definert som "litterære, vitenskapelige eller kunstneriske verk av enhver art og uansett uttrykksmåte". For å kunne benytte eller kopiere verket, kreves det at det innhentes tillatelse fra opphavsmannen og utgiveren. Det er ikke tillatt å kopiere verket selv om verket ikke er merket med forbud mot dette.

http://www.bedin.no/...rent_14/hDKey_1

 

 

Jeg vil tro du finner ditt svar i Åndsverkloven. Jeg er ingen ekspert på den, så jeg kan desverre ikke svare på det spørsmålet.

 

Men jeg stiller meg spørrendes til hvorfor du ønsker å utfordre den når du i ene omgang uttrykker manglende hensyn til individets rettigheter til egen eiendom, for i andre omgang benytte deg av andres eiendom uten å spørre.

[Marxisten]

DLF og Onar var vel sist jeg sjekket for intellektuell eiendomsrett. Hva er din holdning til det Marxisten?

 

Jeg er mot.

 

Men eiendomsrett på land er ikke tåpelig. Eller synes du det er greit om jeg invaderer huset...øh..."ditt"?

[S_J]

Det er forskjell på en bolig eller hage og en fabrikk, jernbane eller en skog. Selv liberalister må da se at de to første er noe helt annet en de tre siste.

På samme måte er det forskjell på en personbil eller en liten robåt og en trailer eller en oljetanker.

Endret 28. februar 2010 av S_J

[ole_marius]

Jeg lever i den tro at om man skal betale eksterne forsikringer, utdanning, beskyttelse osv selv, så vil den totale summen være dyrere enn hva vi betaler i form av skatt.

 

Nettopp, du har en tro, men du har ingen økonomisk forståelse.

 

Det å bruke tro som rettesnor er i realiteten å bestemme seg for å slutte å tenke, å flyte på autopilot og la andre mennesker eller tidligere ervervet kunnskap få styre livet ditt.

 

Artige er at du ikke kan bevise eller motbevise min antatte påstand siden din liberalistiske stat kan ende slik

[Marxisten]

Det er forskjell på en bolig eller hage og en fabrikk, jernbane eller en skog.

 

How?

 

If a railway cannot be owned, what the fuck makes you believe that these will ever be built? What you're saying is basically that I should be allowed to build my own house, but I should't be allowed to transform my house into a factory. That's ridiculous!

Endret 28. februar 2010 av Marxisten

[Marxisten]

Myth #1 Libertarians believe that each individual is an isolated, hermetically sealed atom, acting in a vacuum without influencing each other.

 

This is a common charge, but a highly puzzling one. Libertarians are methodological and political individualists, to be sure. They believe that only individuals think, value, act, and choose. They believe that each individual has the right to own his own body, free of coercive interference. But no individualist denies that people are influencing each other all the time in their goals, values, pursuits and occupations. No individualist or libertarian denies that people influence each other all the time, and surely there is nothing wrong with this inevitable process. What libertarians are opposed to is not voluntary persuasion, but the coercive imposition of values by the use of force and police power. Libertarians are in no way opposed to the voluntary cooperation and collaboration between individuals: only to the compulsory pseudo-"cooperation" imposed by the State.

 

Myth #2 Libertarians are libertines: they are hedonists who hanker after "alternative life-styles."

 

Libertarianism is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism. Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles.

 

Myth #3 Libertarians do not believe in moral principles; they limit themselves to cost-benefit analysis on the assumption that man is always rational.

 

Most libertarians rest their case on moral principles, on a belief in the natural rights of every individual to his person or property. They therefore believe in the absolute immorality of aggressive violence, of invasion of those rights to person or property, regardless of which person or group commits such violence.

 

Libertarians make no exceptions to the golden rule and provide no moral loophole, no double standard, for government. We believe that theft is theft and does not become legitimated because organized robbers call their theft "taxation." We believe that enslavement is enslavement even if the institution committing that act calls it "conscription." In short, the key to libertarian theory is that it makes no exceptions in its universal ethic for government.

 

Myth #4 Libertarianism is atheistic and materialist, and neglects the spiritual side of life.

 

There is no necessary connection between being for or against libertarianism and one’s position on religion. It is true that many if not most libertarians at the present time are atheists, but this correlates with the fact that most intellectuals, of most political persuasions, are atheists as well. There are many libertarians who are theists, Jewish or Christian. Among the classical liberal forebears of modem libertarianism in a more religious age there were a myriad of Christians: from John Lilburne, Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and John Locke in the seventeenth century, down to Cobden and Bright, Frederic Bastiat and the French laissez-faire liberals, and the great Lord Acton.

 

Libertarians believe that liberty is a natural right embedded in a natural law of what is proper for mankind, in accordance with man’s nature. Where this set of natural laws comes from, whether it is purely natural or originated by a creator, is an important ontological question but is irrelevant to social or political philosophy. As Father Thomas Davitt declares: "If the word ‘natural’ means anything at all, it refers to the nature of a man, and when used with ‘law,’ ‘natural’ must refer to an ordering that is manifested in the inclinations of a man's nature and to nothing else. Hence, taken in itself, there is nothing religious or theological in the ‘Natural Law’ of Aquinas."5 Or, as D'Entrèves writes of the seventeenth century Dutch Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius:

 

[Grotius’] definition of natural law has nothing revolutionary. When he maintains that natural law is that body of rule which Man is able to discover by the use of his reason, he does nothing but restate the Scholastic notion of a rational foundation of ethics. Indeed, his aim is rather to restore that notion which had been shaken by the extreme Augustinianism of certain Protestant currents of thought. When he declares that these rules are valid in themselves, independently of the fact that God willed them, he repeats an assertion which had already been made by some of the school-men...6

 

Libertarianism has been accused of ignoring man’s spiritual nature. But one can easily arrive at libertarianism from a religious or Christian position: emphasizing the importance of the individual, of his freedom of will, of natural rights and private property. Yet one can also arrive at all these self-same positions by a secular, natural law approach, through a belief that man can arrive at a rational apprehension of the natural law.

 

Historically furthermore, it is not at all clear that religion is a firmer footing than secular natural law for libertarian conclusions. As Karl Wittfogel reminded us in his Oriental Despotism, the union of throne and altar has been used for centuries to fasten a reign of despotism on society.7 Historically, the union of church and State has been in many instances a mutually reinforcing coalition for tyranny. The State used the church to sanctify and preach obedience to its supposedly divinely sanctioned rule; the church used the State to gain income and privilege. The Anabaptists collectivized and tyrannized Munster in the name of the Christian religion.8 And, closer to our century, Christian socialism and the social gospel have played a major role in the drive toward statism, and the apologetic role of the Orthodox Church in Soviet Russia has been all too clear. Some Catholic bishops in Latin America have even proclaimed that the only route to the kingdom of heaven is through Marxism, and if I wished to be nasty, I could point out that the Reverend Jim Jones, in addition to being a Leninist, also proclaimed himself the reincarnation of Jesus.

 

Moreover, now that socialism has manifestly failed, politically and economically, socialists have fallen back on the "moral" and the "spiritual" as the final argument for their cause. Socialist Robert Heilbroner, in arguing that socialism will have to be coercive and will have to impose a "collective morality" upon the public, opines that: "Bourgeois culture is focused on the material achievement of the individual. Socialist culture must focus on his or her moral or spiritual achievement." The intriguing point is that this position of Heilbroner's was hailed by the conservative religious writer for National Review, Dale Vree. He writes:

 

Heilbroner is...saying what many contributors to NR have said over the last quarter-century: you can't have both freedom and virtue. Take note, traditionalists. Despite his dissonant terminology, Heilbroner is interested in the same thing you're interested in: virtue.9

 

Vree is also fascinated with the Heilbroner view that a socialist culture must "foster the primacy of the collectivity" rather than the "primacy of the individual." He quotes Heilbroner’s contrasting "moral or spiritual" achievement under socialism as against bourgeois "material" achievement, and adds correctly: "There is a traditional ring to that statement." Vree goes on to applaud Heilbroner’s attack on capitalism because it has "no sense of ‘the good’" and permits "consenting adults" to do anything they please. In contrast to this picture of freedom and permitted diversity, Vree writes that "Heilbroner says alluringly, because a socialist society must have a sense of ‘the good,’ not everything will be permitted." To Vree, it is impossible "to have economic collectivism along with cultural individualism," and so he is inclined to lean toward a new "socialist-traditionalist fusionism" – toward collectivism across the board.

 

We may note here that socialism becomes especially despotic when it replaces "economic" or "material" incentives by allegedly "moral" or "spiritual" ones, when it affects to promoting an indefinable "quality of life" rather than economic prosperity. When payment is adjusted to productivity there is considerably more freedom as well as higher standards of living. For when reliance is placed solely on altruistic devotion to the socialist motherland, the devotion has to be regularly reinforced by the knout. An increasing stress on individual material incentive means ineluctably a greater stress on private property and keeping what one earns, and brings with it considerably more personal freedom, as witness Yugoslavia in the last three decades in contrast to Soviet Russia. The most horrifying despotism on the face of the earth in recent years was undoubtedly Pol Pot’s Cambodia, in which "materialism" was so far obliterated that money was abolished by the regime. With money and private property abolished, each individual was totally dependent on handouts of rationed subsistence from the State, and life was a sheer hell. We should be careful before we sneer at "merely material" goals or incentives.

 

The charge of "materialism" directed against the free market ignores the fact that every human action whatsoever involves the transformation of material objects by the use of human energy and in accordance with ideas and purposes held by the actors. It is impermissible to separate the "mental" or "spiritual" from the "material." All great works of art, great emanations of the human spirit, have had to employ material objects: whether they be canvasses, brushes and paint, paper and musical instruments, or building blocks and raw materials for churches. There is no real rift between the "spiritual" and the "material" and hence any despotism over and crippling of the material will cripple the spiritual as well.

 

 

Myth #5 Libertarians are utopians who believe that all people are good, and that therefore State control is not necessary. Conservatives tend to add that since human nature is either partially or wholly evil, strong State regulation is therefore necessary for society.

 

This is a very common belief about libertarians, yet it is difficult to know the source of this misconception. Rousseau, the locus classicus of the idea that man is good but is corrupted by his institutions, was scarcely a libertarian. Apart from the romantic writings of a few anarcho-communists, whom I would not consider libertarians in any case, I know of no libertarian or classical liberal writers who have held this view. On the contrary, most libertarian writers hold that man is a mixture of good and evil and therefore that it is important for social institutions to encourage the good and discourage the bad. The State is the only social institution which is able to extract its income and wealth by coercion; all others must obtain revenue either by selling a product or service to customers or by receiving voluntary gifts. And the State is the only institution which can use the revenue from this organized theft to presume to control and regulate people's lives and property. Hence, the institution of the State establishes a socially legitimatized and sanctified channel for bad people to do bad things, to commit regularized theft and to wield dictatorial power. Statism therefore encourages the bad, or at least the criminal elements of human nature. As Frank H. Knight trenchantly put it: "The probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender- hearted person would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation."10 A free society, by not establishing such a legitimated channel for theft and tyranny, discourages the criminal tendencies of human nature and encourages the peaceful and the voluntary. Liberty and the free market discourage aggression and compulsion, and encourage the harmony and mutual benefit of voluntary interpersonal exchanges, economic, social, and cultural.

 

Since a system of liberty would encourage the voluntary and discourage the criminal, and would remove the only legitimated channel for crime and aggression, we could expect that a free society would indeed suffer less from violent crime and aggression than we do now, though there is no warrant for assuming that they would disappear completely. That is not utopianism, but a common-sense implication of the change in what is considered socially legitimate, and in the reward-and-penalty structure in society.

 

We can approach our thesis from another angle. If all men were good and none had criminal tendencies, then there would indeed be no need for a State as conservatives concede. But if on the other hand all men were evil, then the case for the State is just as shaky, since why should anyone assume that those men who form the government and obtain all the guns and the power to coerce others, should be magically exempt from the badness of all the other persons outside the government? Tom Paine, a classical libertarian often considered to be naively optimistic about human nature, rebutted the conservative evil-human-nature argument for a strong State as follows: "If all human nature be corrupt, it is needless to strengthen the corruption by establishing a succession of kings, who be they ever so base, are still to be obeyed...." Paine added that "No man since the fall hath ever been equal to the trust of being given power over all."11 And as the libertarian F.A. Harper once wrote:

 

Still using the same principle that political rulership should be employed to the extent of the evil in man, we would then have a society in which complete political rulership of all the affairs of everybody would be called for.... One man would rule all. But who would serve as the dictator? However he were to be selected and affixed to the political throne, he would surely be a totally evil person, since all men are evil. And this society would then be ruled by a totally evil dictator possessed of total political power. And how, in the name of logic, could anything short of total evil be its consequence? How could it be better than having no political rulership at all in that society?12

 

Finally, since, as we have seen, men are actually a mixture of good and evil, a regime of liberty serves to encourage the good and discourage the bad, at least in the sense that the voluntary and mutually beneficial are good and the criminal is bad. In no theory of human nature, then, whether it be goodness, badness, or a mixture of the two, can statism be justified. In the course of denying the notion that he is a conservative, the classical liberal F.A. Hayek pointed out: "The main merit of individualism [which Adam Smith and his contemporaries advocated] is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity...."13

 

 

It is important to note what differentiates libertarians from utopians in the pejorative sense. Libertarianism does not set out to remould human nature. One of socialism’s major goals is to create, which in practice means by totalitarian methods, a New Socialist Man, an individual whose major goal will be to work diligently and altruistically for the collective. Libertarianism is a political philosophy which says: Given any existent human nature, liberty is the only moral and the most effective political system. Obviously, libertarianism – as well as any other social system – will work better the more individuals are peaceful and the less they are criminal or aggressive. And libertarians, along with most other people, would like to attain a world where more individuals are "good" and fewer are criminals. But this is not the doctrine of libertarianism per se, which says that whatever the mix of man's nature may be at any given time, liberty is best.

 

Myth #6 Libertarians believe that every person knows his own interests best. Just as the preceding charge holds that libertarians believe all men to be perfectly good, so this myth charges them with believing that everyone is perfectly wise. Yet, it is then maintained, this is not true of many people, and therefore the State must intervene.

 

But the libertarian no more assumes perfect wisdom than he postulates perfect goodness. There is a certain common sense in holding that most men are better apprised of their own needs and goals then is anyone else. But there is no assumption that everyone always knows his own interest best. Libertarianism rather asserts that everyone should have the right to pursue his own interest as he deems best. What is being asserted is the right to act with one's own person and property, and not the necessary wisdom of such action.

 

It is also true, however, that the free market – in contrast to government – has built-in mechanisms to enable people to turn freely to experts who can give sound advice on how to pursue one’s interests best. As we have seen earlier, free individuals are not hermetically sealed from one another. For on the free market, any individual, if in doubt about what his own true interests may be, is free to hire or consult experts to give him advice based on their possibly superior knowledge. The individual may hire such experts and, on the free market, can continuously test their soundness and helpfulness. Individuals on the market, therefore, tend to patronize those experts whose advice will prove most successful. Good doctors, lawyers, or architects will reap rewards on the free market, while poor ones will tend to fare badly. But when government intervenes, the government expert acquires his revenue by compulsory levy upon the taxpayers. There is no market test of his success in advising people of their own true interests. He only need have ability in acquiring the political support of the State’s machinery of coercion.

 

Thus, the privately hired expert will tend to flourish in proportion to his ability, whereas the government expert will flourish in proportion to his success in currying political favor. Moreover, the government expert will be no more virtuous than the private one; his only superiority will be in gaining the favor of those who wield political force. But a crucial difference between the two is that the privately hired expert has every pecuniary incentive to care about his clients or patients, and to do his best by them. But the government expert has no such incentive; he obtains his revenue in any case. Hence, the individual consumer will tend to fare better on the free market.

 

I hope that this essay has contributed to clearing away the rubble of myth and misconception about libertarianism. Conservatives and everyone else should politely be put on notice that libertarians do not believe that everyone is good, nor that everyone is an all-wise expert on his own interest, nor that every individual is an isolated and hermetically sealed atom. Libertarians are not necessarily libertines or hedonists, nor are they necessarily atheists; and libertarians emphatically do believe in moral principles. Let each of us now proceed to an examination of libertarianism as it really is, unencumbered by myth or legend. Let us look at liberty plain, without fear or favor. I am confident that, were this to he done, libertarianism would enjoy an impressive rise in the number of its followers.

Endret 28. februar 2010 av Marxisten

[Ducktoy]

Kildelenke til innlegg 1686: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard12.html

[S_J]

Det er forskjell på en bolig eller hage og en fabrikk, jernbane eller en skog.

 

How?

 

If a railway cannot be owned, what the fuck makes you believe that these will ever be built? What you're saying is basically that I should be allowed to build my own house, but I should't be allowed to transform my house into a factory. That's ridiculous!

Den ene er det du bor i, den andre er der dine ansatte arbeider i.

 

Jeg sier ikke ingen skal eie fabrikker og slikt, men jeg mener det er greit at boliger og fabrikker ikke sidestilles i alt. Forresten så eier vel staten allerede jernbanene.

[Marxisten]

This is hopeless. I hereby retreat from this forum.

 

Good bye.

 

Endret 28. februar 2010 av Marxisten

[Ståle Nordlie]

Jeg lever i den tro at om man skal betale eksterne forsikringer, utdanning, beskyttelse osv selv, så vil den totale summen være dyrere enn hva vi betaler i form av skatt.

 

Nettopp, du har en tro, men du har ingen økonomisk forståelse.

 

Det å bruke tro som rettesnor er i realiteten å bestemme seg for å slutte å tenke, å flyte på autopilot og la andre mennesker eller tidligere ervervet kunnskap få styre livet ditt.

 

Artige er at du ikke kan bevise eller motbevise min antatte påstand siden din liberalistiske stat kan ende slik

Hva slags bevis vil du akseptere på at statlige tjenester generelt blir dyrere enn private tjenester?

[Tabris]

This is hopeless. I hereby retreat from this forum.

 

Selvsagt er det håpløst. Du har jo fått tilbakemeldinger flere ganger om at du bruker en helt feil debatteknikk og fremgangsmåte hvis du faktisk ønsker å få budskapet ditt frem overhodet.

[tom waits for alice]

This is hopeless. I hereby retreat from this forum.

 

Good bye.

 

Siden trådstarter etter eget sigende har forlatt oss og ikke kan forsvare sin ideologi stenges tråden, så den ikke utvikler seg til en "se hvor dumme liberalistene er"-tråd. Dersom en av forumets andre liberalister har lyst til å overta stafettpinnen etter Marxisten så send meg en PM, så skal jeg åpne tråden igjen.

 

Geir

[Marxisten]

SE VIDEOENE FØRST FØR DERE DELTAR I DEBATTEN! Det tar litt tid, men det er nødvendig for å holde debatten på et visst nivå.

 

Jeg hører ofte folk si at man har rett til "basic needs", som mat og helsebehandling. Men har man virkelig rett til det? For at man skal ha rett til noe, må det jo være noen der for å sørge for at du får det du har rett på. Hvem skal dette være? "Staten", sier folk. Men staten drives jo av skattebetalerne! De som sier at helsebehandling er en rettighet, sier altså at man har rett på at andre mennesker betaler helsebehandllingen sin.

 

Hvis dere ser disse videoen, forklares det grundig hvorfor helsebehandling IKKE er en rettighet.

 

Videoene:

 

 

What are our rights?:

 

 

How can you violate a right?:

 

 

Why socialists have no basis for their "rights":

 

 

 

 

Man skiller mellom positive og negative rettigheter, også kalt velferds- og frihetsrettigheter. Disse skiller seg fra hverandre ved at førstnevnte innebærer en rett TIL noe – for eksempel retten til utdanning eller helsepleie, mens sistnevnte innebærer en rett FRA noe – for eksempel retten til ikke å bli drept eller retten til ikke å bli frastjålet det man eier.

 

Man kan altså ikke ha RETT til helsebehandling med mindre andre har PLIKT til å skaffe deg det! Hm, plikt til å jobbe for andre, har vi et annet ord for det som starter på "S", mon tro...?

 

Når det er sagt, HAR man faktisk rett til helsebehandling, på den måten at man har rett til å oppsøke helsebehandling uten at staten legger noe i veien for deg. Staten har altså ikke rett til å nekte en doktor å behandle pasienter fordi han arbeider svart eller fordi han bryter "kvakksalverloven". Det eneste han ikke kan gjøre, er å svindle pasientene sine, dvs. å utgi seg behandlingen for å være noe annet enn det den faktisk er.

 

Sosialistene vil ha oss til å tro at rettigheter ikke er basert på virkeligheten. De vil ha oss til å tro at rettigheter bare er funnet opp, og de ser på det som gaver som staten gir oss. Rett til helsebehandling, minstelønn, you name it. Mange av sosialistene forstår faktisk at disse gavene kan være i konflikt med hverandre, men i stedet for å konkludere med at hele fundamentet for tankegangen deres er feil, foreslår de i stedet at flertallet gjennom demokratiske valg skal bestemme hvilke rettigheter man har.

 

De som derimot har forstått at rettigheter dreier seg om individuell frihet, forstår også at forestillingen om at flertallet definerer rettigheter, ikke kan være riktig. Flertallsdemokratiet er ikke forenlig med individuelle rettigheter. Hvis du har rett til din egen eiendom, har du rett til den uansett hvor mange som ønsker å ta den fra deg.

 

Sosialistene har ikke noe fundament for "rettighetene" sine. De peker derfor på FNs menneskerettighetserklæring eller sier at rettighetene er gitt til oss av Gud. Dette er en dårlig framgangsmåte for å overbevise folk om ideene sine. Rettigheter må ha et rasjonelt fundament.

 

Q&As

 

 

 

 

 

Endret 1. mars 2010 av Marxisten

[Rumlaheim]

Selvsagt har folk har rett til helsebehandling. Det skaper en trygghet i hverdagen til folk å vite at deres basis behov er dekt av staten, som helse og utdanning. Og ja, det er staten som må dekke dette, som igjen får sine inntekter fra skattebetalere, men jeg ser virkelig ikke hvorfor det er så ille. Det er bedre at man mister litt "frihet", i form av skatt, for å skape et trygt og godt samfunn, fremfor at man baserer dette på forsikringer og frivillig arbeid, som er høyst usikkert.

[Marxisten]

SE VIDEOENE FØR DU SVARER!!!

Endret 1. mars 2010 av Marxisten

[Rumlaheim]

Jeg så videoene, men jeg er grunnleggende uenig. Den friheten dere forfekter er kun for de priviligerte. Fattige, lavtlønnede og mennesker med diverse skader eller hemminger vil selvsagt foretrekke å bo i et samfunn hvor man har en stat som passer på dem. For dem er ikke friheten mer enn en hindring i mange tilfeller, og da spesielt med tanke på helsebehandling som er uhyre viktig for alle og enhver. For de med penger er friheten fin og ha for de kan velge på øverste hylle, men hva med de som ikke er så priviligerte? Jo, de må nøye seg med dårlig kvalitet, og det er her vi er grunnleggende uenige.

[Marxisten]

Jeg så videoene

 

Nei, du så ikke videoene. Jeg postet videoen for at du skulle SE de før du svarer, og så kan du eventuelt peke på feilantagelser i argumentasjonen.

 

At du TRENGER noe, gir deg ikke rett til å bruke makt til å TA det fra andre. Dette bryter nemlig med andre menneskers rett til å bestemme over eget liv uten å bli utsatt for overgrep. Dette blir grundig forklart.

 

Kom gjerne tilbake når du har sett videoene.

Endret 1. mars 2010 av Marxisten

[Rumlaheim]

Jeg svarer igjen, jeg har sett videoene, og feiltagelsene er flere. I Norge, som i de fleste demokratiske land, har staten lov til å ta dine penger i form av skatt, for så å spre det videre i form av sosiale goder, infrastruktur, helse, utdanning etc. Vi har også rett til behandling, noe som gavner alle, og ikke bare de velstående som kan være tilfelle i et liberalistisk samfunn. Ja, det går imot din rett til å bestemme over deg selv, men i Norge har staten lov å gjøre det, og derfor er Norge et av verdens beste land å bo i.

[Marxisten]

det går imot din rett til å bestemme over deg selv

 

Anerkjenner du min rett til å bestemme over mitt eget liv, eller ikke?

[Rumlaheim]

Anerkjenner du min rett til å bestemme over mitt eget liv, eller ikke?

 

Både og. Jeg anerkjenner din rett til å bestemme over ditt eget liv, så sant det ikke går utover andre. Dette inkludere å ikke betale skatt, eller som vi sosialister liker å si det; ikke bidrar til fellesskapet. Dette går strengt tatt ikke bare under min definisjon, men det støttes også opp av grunnloven.