Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Yes, you say freedom of personal choice. Again what I suggest is a complex wrinkle in that idea, is when personal choice affects others. Like you correctly point out even one person existing affects another persons liberty, when you look at it realistically.What I find hard to understand is that you are so vocal behind freedom of choice, yet you push it on all the fronts that are the most controversial and which have very fuzzy edges. The ideals of prostitution are great when you think about it, but I've known two people over the course of my life that were involved in the industry. If, as you do, you look at prostitution from the perspective of the person paying for the sex, it seems sound. What about the sex worker? From their perspective, they didn't really want to have sex with the people they did, but because they were being paid money which they needed to survive, they consented. One ended up with herpes. I've heard horror stories about old men and bum sex.I KNOW this is not a description the entire industry, but when you reduce prostitution to "paying for sex" you ignore most of what it really entails.Is it freedom of choice? Or someone caught up in a bad situation and exploited by capitalism?You love your civil liberties and freedom of choice, but you ignore the dirty underside of these topics. No, you don't ignore them, but you feel they are only a result of the lack of freedom of choice. Or possibly you feel that there are better ways to deal with these things and freedom of choice on the matter is the best beginning. "The ability to chose what we wish to do with our own lives and bodies"?Marx said some very true words in regards to this "Men make their own history but not in circumstances of their own choosing." How can we take these circumstances away? Because with them, this freedom of choice thing only favors a select few.WOW I am flabbergasted at what you have said: "If a child lives with someone who smokes, they could bring it up in a civil case if it truly bothered them. This would entitle the child to either find new custody or be legally emancipated, depending on the circumstances." Do you really think this is a viable option?Who would fund this legal debate?When would a child be old enough to decide this?... I'm almost struck dumb by that suggestion...re:drunk driving. I'm pretty good at driving drunk. Have done it on many occasions in my youth. I have had a lot of practice. FORTUNATELY I was never caught. I have also done a lot of research and written a few articles about intoxication levels in regards to impairment. Currently the law is (depending on where you are) If you are over said limit (usually a few drinks, in NZ we have a high limit, I've passed a breath test after 6-7 drinks) you are charged. The reason drunk people go out and drive is normally "I'm FINE to drive! It will be all good!" their friends can hold them back because the law does not go on impairment. And a drunk persons opinion of their impairment is arguably impaired. If the law was based only on impairment, most wouldn't care how much they had drunk in the night, just whether they would pass the impairment test. And how do you get a test that is not flawed? Breath tests are flawed, I know that, but would an 'impairment' test be better, and more importantly, what kind of message would an 'impairment' test give to the drinking society?LOL! When I said civil war I thought I made it quite clear that I was referring to civil war in general, not just your one particular example of America. Civil war and anarchy are freedom of choice gone wrong, and possibly even subverted by other influences. I admit that. But it is still on some level a freedom of choice thing. The only reason I brought this up is because you said that there is not one example where freedom of choice led to disorder. I gave you a plethora of history and current affairs in Sudan, north Africa, middle east to look at, and all you did was think about your own US civil war... In society you cannot simply have one part (eg:freedom of choice) without all the other ugly parts of society. You must think from an embedded perspective, instead of skimming only what is relevant to your own debate. It is fine to suggest Freedom of choice, but in practice, it hardly ever comes about without disorder, and it hardly ever is maintained without continual disorder.Anarchy. Let us look at the description:1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.What can you base your idea that the mass majority of people, who have no intention on murdering and raping, will all of a sudden go on a crime spree if government just disappeared? What facts do you have?Other than what you THINK human nature means in your regulated society. Look at what Sigmund Freud says about human nature. I'd believe him before I believed your "truth claims". And I don't agree with a lot of what Freud says, but he makes some good points. Pedophillic nature of modern society. Wanting to sex our parents... This man studied humans. What experience can you draw upon to say that humans are mostly good people?Civil war is something that is ever present these days. If you think anarchy is tribalism you are wrong. Tribes have chiefs, leaders, patriarchy... Maybe what you mean is hunter gatherers? But again kin based groups still are lead by elders, fathers, warriors... And if you want to argue that either of these are mainly peaceful, talk to Napoleon Chagnon who devoted much of his life studying tribal culture and warfare.I was not defending Ayn Rand, or randian thought, for my own benefit. I think it is a disasterous way to think about life. I was mearly setting you straight because some of the things you stated were incorrect.Your ideals of Freedom of choice, I suggest, are simply that. Ideals. And I would hazard to go further and suggest they are not well thought out ideals. Democracy. I'd prefer a slow developing, equitably distributed socialist community-minded democracy any day, DESPITE its many flaws, than the self-destructive neoliberal "freedom of choice for the individual" capitalist society.