Liberalism sometimes beats libertarianism for personal freedom!

[Pushed To The Left]

I realize that some Democrats don't go far enough on social issues, so some Libertarians might have the edge in the personal freedom area over some Democrats. However, I think when you put pure liberalism against pure libertarianism, pure liberalism has the edge a lot of the time when it comes to personal freedom.

Here's an example: An employee of a company. He never uses drugs or alcohol during the week, but he likes to smoke marijuana every Saturday night before going to sleep.

Conservative approach: Throw him in jail on drug charges and allow his employer to fire him for smoking pot during the weekend.

Libertarian approach: Let him use marijuana if he pleases, but allow his employer to fire him for smoking pot during the weekend.

Liberal approach: Let him use marijuana if he pleases, and protect him from being unjustly fired for what he does during the weekend.

Pure social liberalism wins by knockout!

Another example: Two employees fall in love at the office. Unfortunately, the company has implemented a "no inter-office dating" policy. They will be fired if they continue the relationship.

Libertarian approach: Let the company make whatever rules they want and fire people for any reason.

Liberal approach: Protect the couple from being unjustly fired, allowing them to date if they choose to.

Once again, the edge goes to liberalism when it comes to personal freedom.

[toddaa]

1. Personal freedom of the business owner

So your saying that once a person establishes a business, they lose the right to free association.

[Pushed To The Left]

4. Personal freedom

The personal freedom of the business owner would not be affected in my "liberal approach" example. Key word: Personal. The owner can live his or her personal life however he or she chooses to regardless of business regulations. The employer is in a position of power, unless you believe that getting fired is completely harmless and doesn't adversely affect one's life.

The conservative/libertarian approach affects the freedom of the employees much more than the liberal approach affects the employer. I think being penalized for what you do off the clock or who you choose to date is more of an assault on freedom then any business regulation.

[toddaa]

10. Get rid of wage labor

There. Problem solved.

[Solon]

7. They lose such personal "freedom" anyways...

if you have a FOR PROFIT business in this country, then you do NOT have the right of free association, as an example, non-discrimination policies have held up in court. Now, for NON PROFITS, you can discriminate all you want, for example in churches, or White Supremists associations. That is the difference.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Liberalism honors public service & good works. Libertarians put the public

interest aside for their own interest. Which one will do a better job of building communities? And which one will result in destroying it?

[toddaa]

11. Bakunin says your wrong

"In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the
private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time;
that it is condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for
production must, and will, become the common property of society,
and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And...they
maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to minimum....(and) that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to nil--that is, to a society without government, to an-archy."

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Bakunian can suck lollipops. The sour lemon ones, too.

First, I'm not a socialist. I lived in a near perfect socialist community, and it was nirvana ONLY because American taxpayers were footing the bill. (It was a military base.)

And one thing that many of the earlier philosophers did not stick into their formulas were two factors which are pertinent to our world today(1) diminishing resources, including land; and (2) over-population.

Have you seen the face of real poverty? Once you do, you realize that society without a strong regulating government WILL resort to anarchy -- but anarchy does not mean the absence of laws. It means, the absence of a uniformly applied law. The absence of an even playing field. Anarchy is a place where the strongest And/OR ruthless will rule.

If you're going to promote a philosphy, you also have to be true to yourself and everyone else. Anarchy is just another word for a return back to barbaric times. It's not civilization moving forward.

[toddaa]

15. "Anarchy is a place where the strongest And/OR ruthless will rule. "

This is what we have now. How does taking away their power increase it?

[Columbia]

3. I'm not sure liberals would consider those unjust firings

Has the ACLU sued under such situations?

[Pushed To The Left]

5. They should

I don't know if the ACLU has ever taken such a case, but it sounds like their type of case. If there was ever an ACLU court case over these types of firings, I think liberals would support the ACLU's actions and libertarians would be furious at them. Conservatives would be twice as furious!

[ArthurDent]

6. Not even close

In example two, libertarians would lampoon the no intra-office dating policy as a byproduct of liberalism (specifically anti-harassment policies) gone awry. The major purpose for such a policy is to give an employer cause for terminating a person who, by his/her dating habits, causes an obvious liability for the employer. If anything, it is the anti-harassment policy that causes "the edge" you perceive.

As for the former example, you're kidding, right? Let's say Employer drug tests and that's how he found out about the pot use. Should he really accept as a defense "I only smoke up on Saturday nights"? Of course not -- why bother testing if such a ridiculous defense is in play.

Secondly, imagine if the Employer has children. If he is forced to hire/not fire the pot smoker, how does he credibly tell his children that pot is wrong? That infringes on his personal freedom.


Here's a question for you:
Employee goes to Klan rallies on Saturday nights. Should Employer be able to fire him for this?

[Solon]

8. No he shouldn't...

Also for the first example, if the Pot smoker in question was UNDER THE INFLUENCE at work, then he should be fired, because it affects his work. Just like if he was drunk, the inequality between the two comes in that if the pot smoker smoked it a week ago, it would still show up on drug tests, though he is obviously not under the influence of it, whereas the alcohol drinker could have been drunk that last night, and still pass a piss test, even hungover.

[ArthurDent]

12. The effect on the owner

Take this example:

Guy works M-F 9a-5p. Guy is told that smoking pot, in or out of work, is grounds for termination, and does not object to it. Guy smokes pot Saturday night at 10p in his own apartment. There is no drug testing done at place of work; smoking pot will not effect his work; etc. That's all granted.

However, Boss finds out about Guy's pot-smoking. Can Boss fire Guy?

I assume you'd say no. But there are plenty of reasons why Boss would want to, and should be able to. Some off-the-cuff examples:

1) He doesn't want to open the door to argument. The rule fits his needs -- he can get rid of problem employees who _do_ come in high without having to show that it affected their work. He simply has to show that they smoked up.
2) His customers, if they found out that their money was (in the end) going toward the purchase of drugs, would boycott him.
3) He has small children and wants to set an example for them, and make it clear that _any_ pot use is too much.
etc.

Should Boss have to come up with a reason? Or should the "smoke pot, get fired" policy be good enough? I'd go with the latter.

[Michael_UK]

9. Liberals and libertarians use a different concept of liberty

and therefore what you write is bound to happen. I've read a bit about two concepts of positive and negative freedom. Libertarians favour negative freedom, which (as I see it) is the absence of someone actively obstructively, whereas liberals prefer positive freedom as well, where things like education come onto play - someone educated has more freedom than someone without, no matter how much negative freedom a person enjoys.

Julian Baggini wrote a piece on it in the guardian

http://talk.workunlimited.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1363264,00.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Libertarianism (american version) isn't about freedom..it's about greed.

[Az]

16. Um

If a person's performance is affected by their weekend activities the employer has the right to fire them. However if drugs are legalized then the employer has no call for a drug test and thus can fire the employee simply for poor workmanship.