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.
Pornographic pictures of abuse and torture, then.
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.
I'm well aware of the flaws of utilitarianism. Remember, I'm the one that said no ideology is perfect. But that does not mean that you can't discuss the pros and cons of various forms of liberty. And, again, if liberty offers me no benefits, why should I want to protect it? If you can't answer that question, then you'll have a heck of a problem convincing people to protect your liberty as an abstract value.
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.
But only by rehasing those examples can one distinguish where liberty is essential, where liberty is good, where liberty is a liability, and where liberty is a disaster. And only by looking at liberty that way will you ever understand why it waxes and wanes in societies and why libertarians don't get more than a few percentage of votes. Heck, even the Socialists have a person in Congress and the Libertarians don't.
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".
And government fees aren't taxes, right? You are splitting hairs. American Heritage defines "liberty" as "The condition of being free from restriction or control." If the government prevents me from doing what I want with my property or the lives of others, then I'm not free from restrictions or control.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I am saying that it's not unfettered liberty. It's limited and restricted liberty. And I point that out to illustrate that the debate is not whether liberty should be restricted or not but about where to draw the lines and restrict it.
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.
Not at all. I'm simply pointing that out to point out that libertarians also believe in limited liberty. While you or I might not want to hurt others or take their stuff, there are clearly people who do want to do those things. Libertarians realize that having other people excercise their liberty without regard for the life or property of others has a negative impact on their life, so they seek to restrict that liberty from those who would practice it. It's a matter of restricting someone else's liberty for your own benefit, no matter how you want to cloud it in euphemisms. The debate is one of degree, not absolutes.
Basically, my analysis is based on the understanding that if the liberty of those around me where as unfettered as libertarians want, it would encourage the practice of liberty without responsibility and that someone else practicing their liberty without responsibility or consideration for me and those I love becomes a liability for me and those I love.
Above, you imply that the restrictions against acts that endanger the lives or property of others are not a problem because they restrict a liberty to do things that I don't do already. True. I also don't object to laws against public obscenity because I don't do that, either. In fact, I think that's the line most people make, couched in more high-minded rhetoric. They don't mind restricting the liberty of others in areas where they wouldn't mind their own liberty being restricted.
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....
Well, then where do you draw the line and how? My argument is that a reasonable society exists in the area between pure ideologies and that a society needs to negotiate the trade-offs between the liberty to do things and the liberty from other people doing things you don't want them to do. That's the value I see in democracy filtered through a representative form of government. It allows a means for a society to negatiate what it wants.
Read it. Entertaining as a story, but a straw man as an argument.
Also, please see my correction. Apparently Niven has registered to vote as a Libertarian. Need to check N-Space. Still think it makes some legitimate points about human nature that work against Libertarianism.
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.
It doesn't always eventually get better if you give a country a mixed-economy Constitutional Republic. Not only do they work badly in tribal environments (where people vote their tribe, not what's best for their nation -- a real problem in Iraq) but they can spin out of control, as they did not only in France (Napoleon) and Peru (Pinochet after Allende) and Nazi Germany. Remember that the Nazis worked by getting themselves elected first.
For any government based on consensus to work, people need to have concern for the welfare of others and consideration for what others want. Without that, it becomes a selfish grab for advantage and political battles turn more contentious. Ideally, that consideration should be handled as a matter of culture, not law. If the culture lacks that consideration, the law will step in to impose it. I'd agree that can also spiral out of control in the opposite direction, but the intensity with which people push in one direction often corresponds to the intensity with which someone pushes in the other direction (until things snap, if they both keep pushing harder). Thus the more gays defend the freakish fringes of gay culture, the less people are willing to tolerate them or trust them with children. The more pornography advocates delve into deviant or public pornography, the stronger the push to make it all illegal. The Prohibition of alcohol led to the repeal of Prohibition and the death of the temperence movement. The alternative is to find the "happy medium" that makes nobody happy but gives everyone enough to be happy enough to live with it. It's the liberals' belief in a perfect society where everyone is happy that gets them in so much trouble.
Impact on government policy is properly confined to within the bounds that are the legitimate province of government.
And what force of nature is going to confine government to those bounds?