Granted, that in the real world we may have to sacrifice moral reality for expediency.

Thanks for the discourse. You have certainly shown me a different way of viewing things.

It is also interesting to see how two people with the same ultimate objective can have such differing views on how to achieve that aim!

I think I am beginning to understand! I apologise for my previous slowness, however what you are proposing is so far removed from what one usually considers, that it has been difficult to grasp.

//I also think of mutual agreements rather than of constitutions and laws. In this light, there is absolutely no concept of rights or freedoms, only obligations to abide by the willingly-entered-into agreement. In other words, morality does not even enter here beyond the extent of an individual entering into an agreement in accordance with his personal moral code.//

Hmm okay. But what of those people that do not wish to enter into the contracts put before them? Will the other people leave them alone, and let them get on with what they want? I do not see this happening.

Let me take the issue of drug use once again. There are currently laws enacted which prevent people from taking certain drugs, whether or not they have agreed to those restrictions. In your system, the way things would work would be rather like having being part of a religious group, like the Catholics. They give you a set of rules that you voluntarily abide by, and if you step out of line, you are issued with things to do to rectify your situation. If you wish to leave the group, then you can. This leaving does not require you to move geographically, but rather to leave socially. So, for example, someone could sign a contract saying that they would not use drugs, but this would be a voluantary contract.

The problem with laws as they currently are, is that they are not voluntarily submitted to, they are forced upon people by the majority. This is wrong. Now, one could construe living in a particular area as tacit consent to abide by the laws of that area, with the option to move out if you wish to not be confined by those rules.

The problem is that laws being enacted on a universal basis, even at a local level, wouyld mean that moving would not mean escaping from repression.

If, for example, gay marriage was illegal everywhere in the US, according to your position, that would be acceptable because everyone living in the US, by virtue of living there, would have tacitly consented to those restrictions. Or things like drug use, or religious belief.

I am afraid I believe too strongly that people have a right to live where ever they can afford, and to do what they want in their own homes. I reject the notion of that by living in a particular area you give tacit consent to the restrictions that the majority have decided on.

Yes I realise the unique…difficulties… with the debate over abortion, which is why I switched to drug use.

So if we take drug use, than my original points stand. That in any jurisdiction, or locality, state or country, the restriction of a persons freedom to do as they wish with their own body is beyond any other persons control (through force of law). So, there is no “right” for someone to live in a state or country that has made drug use illegal, because it is the right of any person within that area to use drugs, irrespective of what any other person believe. There is, in short, no authority to make drug use illegal, in ANY public space, and there is also no authority to make drug use illegal on privately owned property.

If an area is under private control – in that case everyone choosing to live in that area would have to abide by the private owner/s. A state or county is not a private possession – it is not purchased or exchanged for anything.

//When that happens, then the smaller and more localized they are, the greater are the chances that their unfortunate subjects can physically escape their grip. I am not saying that this is ideal (no such thing in life anyway), just that it is less bad than the alternative.//

Well I completely agree! A big government that is corrupt, and impinges on the liberty of people is obviously far worse than a small government that does the same.

I have just found this article, which makes interesting reading

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-8.html

//I don’t like the concept of rights//

Neither do I, which is why I prefer to talk of ‘Essential Freedoms’ – ‘rights’ tend to be described as things owed to people. Freedoms are just the idea of not being forced or coerced into doing things you do not want to.
—

Laird,

//There has to be room for different people to reach different answers on this profoundly personal moral dilemma without having the answer forced upon him by someone else.//

Indeed, I completely agree. Which is why I believe making abortion illegal in any locality is wrong. By making something illegal, you take away the opportunity for an individual to reach their own conclusion, and make their own mistakes. However, my making it legal, you are not forcing people to have abortion, you are giving them the opportunity to make the mistake, or not to. Making something illegal forces everyone to not do something; making something legal allows those people who want to do something to do that thing, while allowing those people who do not want to do that thing, to not do that thing.

Let us take drug usage, to avoid the issue of murder of a foetus. People who want to make drug use illegal are trying to deny the opportunity of others to make up their own mind about drugs. However, people that want to make drugs legal are not mandating that all people have to take drugs; they are, in fact, saying that individuals have the right to reach their own conclusions, and that the state has no right to intercede in that experience.

You notice that Perry said that he did not believe it should be up to the federal OR state government to legislate on the issue of abortion, I presume because he feels (like me) that each individual women should be able to make up her own mind without coercion by the government (either local or national).

//You may consider that to be an absolute fact, but not everyone agrees, and therein lies the problem. //

But, I am not a relativist, I am a libertarian, and believe completely in individual autonomy, with the governments only role being to protect individuals from coercion and force by other people or groups of people.

In order to accept the idea that state governments have the right to restrict drug use, I would have to agree that a person does not have absolute authority over their own body, and to do that would be to not be libertarian!

One more point:

However, I am still uncertain as to how this supports the idea that alot of smaller governments (more localised ones) that are concerned with restricting liberty of local people, are preferable to one big one that only concerns itself with defending essential liberties in all localities?

But that is not at all what I had in mind. Ideally I want no government at all, local, federal – none. Less ideally, ‘one big one that only concerns itself with defending essential liberties in all localities’ would be great, only problem is they don’t stay so limited in their functions for very long, as can be seen from the relatively short history of the US. Then, neither did I say that I prefer smaller local governments ‘that are concerned with restricting liberty of local people’. What I am saying is that all governments eventually tend to become oppressive. When that happens, then the smaller and more localized they are, the greater are the chances that their unfortunate subjects can physically escape their grip. I am not saying that this is ideal (no such thing in life anyway), just that it is less bad than the alternative.

//You want to have an abortion but it’s illegal in your state – move to the state next door where it is legal. Or vice versa.//

I was just considering this, and wanted to highlight a point. When you say vice versa, you mean to say that those who think abortion is wrong should have the right to move to somewhere where abortion is illegal. However, my essential point is that making abortion illegal, in any locality, is wrong, because it denies a woman’s sovereignty over her own body. So, if someone believe that abortion is wrong could still live in a locality where abortion is legal, they could just not have an abortion. Or, they could move somewhere most women choose not to have an abortion, even though it is still legal.

If we accept that human liberty is an essential right, then is it correct to permit localities (states) to restrict those rights, even if someone could move somewhere else? If we accept that another person does not have the right to restrict your freedom, then why should any state have the power to say that it is acceptable to restrict another person’s liberty?

I am sorry if I am being dense, but what actually is the advantage of small local governments, that restrict liberty, over a large government that defends liberty in every locality? For example, if it was a choice between a large government that defended freedom of speech in every locality, or a local government that restricted speech in a small area, which would be the better government?

//Mobility is key to this. //

Agreed that it is. However, I am still uncertain as to how this supports the idea that alot of smaller governments (more localised ones) that are concerned with restricting liberty of local people, are preferable to one big one that only concerns itself with defending essential liberties in all localities?

To take the case of, say abortion. If every locality (state) in the US made abortion illegal, where would that leave freedom of choice, or personal sovereignty? You would still have freedom of movement, but that would movement would not mean anything, because everywhere you move, there would be the same restrictions on liberty?

Where I am coming from is that, I believe, that no quantity of people have the right to violate your life, liberty or property, be they a local majority, a national one, or even an international one. So I am not sure which should be the focus of libertarian aims: A national (federal) government that defends essential freedoms (like speech or association), or numerous small local governments (State) that restrict essential liberties?

I can see a situation in which the federal government is reduced to such a level that every state is allowed to govern as it wants, and this resulting in a great increase in repression of essential liberties for the individual.

But then, I understand that the pragmatic and practical problems concerned with defending liberties, as opposed to devolving government, means that libertarians are forced to accept the possibility of local restrictions of liberty. Seems a pity though.