Excuse me for not spending three paragraphs expounding on the way in which the will of the voter can be translated, through representation, into law. I figured the average Freeper was smart enough to fill that in for themself.
Insofar as abuse and torture are already illegal, I don't see what you're getting at.
Do you think possession of pictures of abuse and torture should be illegal on the same grounds that child pornography is illegal -- that possessing such pictures encourages the illegal behavior used to produce them and further victimizes those depicted in the images?
Well, then, there's just no frame of reference for you to advance any argument about politics in a free republic, any more than someone who has no use for abstract discussions of "points" or "lines" has any frame of reference for discussing Euclid's Elements.
It's very easy to have a discussion about politics in a free republic. It's called discussing the benefits and costs of the ideas. If you can't think of any good that comes from widespread liberty, then I think your political views are a house of cards built on sand. And waxing poetic about the wonders of liberty isn't going to persuade someone who has more pressing concerns such as eating or even those for whom liberty is a liability to their quality of life.
Freedom and liberty are not magical fairy dust that make everything better. Even the Founders and libertarians acknowledge that freedom and liberty must be limited in the form of property rights and prohibitions on hurting others against their will. Unfettered liberty is a disaster for the same reason unfettered democracy is. If you can't trust the mob to do the right thing if given a direct majority vote, how can you expect the mob to do the right thing if given unfettered liberty? And don't make the liberal mistake of assuming that laws enforce themselves. People enforce laws and corrupt people enforce laws badly.
The overwhelming reason for rejection of libertarian ideas can be summed up as: "WAAAA! I won't get any more free stuff from the guvmint!"
My reason for rejecting libertarian ideas is that in almost any analysis, they'd make my life more unpleasant. It has nothing to do with any benefits I get from the government. In fact, when I worked for state government and was receiving direct benefits from big government, I voted for the Republicans that cut taxes and cost me my job (and have no regrets for doing that). So I've put my ideological money where my mouth is, thank you very much.
I'm still amazed the the absurdity of libertarians who complain about ordinances passed by local government yet wink at far more draconian ordinances passed by homeowner associations, which leads me to wonder if liberty is even their primary concern, since they are so willing to let people surrender it with a signature.
This indicates a flaw in human nature, not in the ideas.
The ideas are flawwed and the hard core libertarians ask for things that nobody wants, including the abolition of public property, abolition of the FDA, and replacement of most criminal laws with civil laws. Yeah, I really want to live in a country where I have to pay tolls or negotiate right of way rights to drive anywhere, get a medical degree to understand if the drugs I'm taking are safe or not, and sue my neighbors in civil court if they play their radio too loudly at 2AM. Why wouldn't everyone? And before you dismiss those people as warping libertarian ideology, they really aren't. They are the purists who understand the full implication of the ideals.
You might enjoy Larry Niven's short story The Cloak of Anarchy, which he says he wrote to explain why he isn't a libertarian.
(The general principle that public policy should be guided by human nature rather than ideology does not really apply here, since catering to human nature in this regard leads to economic ruin.)
The truth is that no pure ideological system is perfect, which is why we inevitably wind up with compromises between competing ideologies. As things shift too far in any one direction, the weaknesses of that ideology become more obvious and people push back in the other direction, until the flaws in the other direction become too obvious, and so forth. Utopia means "nowhere" for a reason.
See above re confusion between "republic" and "democracy".
What's the purpose of letting voters vote if you think it has no impact on government policy?
Why on earth would I want to put the Holocaust Museum out of business?
It's very easy to have a discussion about politics in a free republic. It's called discussing the benefits and costs of the ideas.
Utilitarianism isn't a sound basis for a republic. The history of the twentieth century can be summed up as the damage trails left by various utilitarian claims about how life could be made better under the guidance of the Party, or the Master Race, or whatever other tommyrot somebody invented to justify the will to power.
If you can't think of any good that comes from widespread liberty
Rehashing the various examples of good that comes from widespread liberty (and bad that comes from its absence) on FR would be as pointless as starting the 73,215th thread denouncing George W. Bush on DU.
Even the Founders and libertarians acknowledge that freedom and liberty must be limited in the form of property rights and prohibitions on hurting others against their will.
This is not so much a matter of restriction as of definition. Obviously, allowing certain people to do whatever they want with the lives and property of others is not "liberty".
My reason for rejecting libertarian ideas is that in almost any analysis, they'd make my life more unpleasant.
Your analysis is based on invalid cherry-picking of infringements that do not affect you because they restrict the liberty to do that which you do not do anyway. Including infringements on things you would do anyway (not just things that other people do that offend your sensibilities) obviously tips the balance toward freedom being more, not less, pleasant.
And before you dismiss those people as warping libertarian ideology, they really aren't. They are the purists who understand the full implication of the ideals.
If you're going to take this position, don't come complaining to me when people refuse to acknowledge any distinction between you and the most extreme Comstockian. After all, the latter is merely "the full implication" of your ideals....
You might enjoy Larry Niven's short story The Cloak of Anarchy
Read it. Entertaining as a story, but a straw man as an argument.
If some hacker could press a button that could somehow instantly replace the North Korean regime with a mixed-economy constitutional republic, the inhabitants would be hopelessly lost in confusion and even worse off then they are now (which is saying something) in the short run. By the argument you attribute to Niven, this proves that mixed-economy constitutional republics are a bad idea.
What's the purpose of letting voters vote if you think it has no impact on government policy?
Impact on government policy is properly confined to within the bounds that are the legitimate province of government.