Quote from: jaysabi on November 24, 2014, 10:19:38 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 23, 2014, 03:32:55 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on November 21, 2014, 09:32:03 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 21, 2014, 07:52:44 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on November 21, 2014, 07:39:00 PM

I personally don't put much emphasis on the distinction between use of force by the feds vs. use of force by the states or local governments. It seems to me either we are free or we are not. The manner by which we are not free (feds vs. local authority) is not very critical.

It is a pretty important distinction. You might consider rethinking your approach. Government is a social cost, anything that needs governing costs therefore...
Start with the maxim: "That governs best which governs least"

I'm not saying it's ultimately not a distinction worth making, I'm just saying that when your freedom is being infringed, it matters less who is doing it than the fact that it is happening. I guess I'm taking issue with the reasoning that because a local government is restricting my freedom, I should be more OK with it than if it was the federal government. That doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. I accept the idea that states should be allowed to set their own laws. That doesn't make states restricting my freedom more palatable.

Under the maxim you quoted, every regulation would make the government less good, so it would stand to reason that the best governments allow the most freedom through the least number of regulations. So when a regulation is passed about who you can give sandwiches to, it stands to reason that it's a pretty unnecessary restriction of freedom. (At least judged solely by this maxim. I would tend to agree, just for different reasons.)

This is good, you made it a good part of the way. My statement was not enough to take it further so here's a sign post for the next step:
Which is the better governance, is there a difference, and why?
1) The father that requires his child to be home by midnight on weekends.
2) A similar city curfew.
3) A national curfew.
4) A global curfew.

All laws must require enforcement in order to be law. Enforceability is primarily a matter of geography, and of what authority holds the uncontested right of force within that geography.
So please consider whether the calculus of "# of regulations" is therefore an insufficient gauge for measuring government freedom restrictions, and consider also the number of square meters/kilometers those regulations cover in their scope.

The only reason I remarked on the number of regulations was because you brought it up. I was, in effect, using your own example without subscribing to the belief myself. It's a snappy maxim, for sure, but number of regulations is somewhat immaterial to me. Rather, the quality of the regulations is my concern. More freedom and fewer regulations can be correlated, but are not necessarily the same. (As a rather silly example, a law that it is illegal to kill someone with a firearm and a separate law that is illegal to kill someone with a vehicle does not make us less free. While it would be easier to have one law that simply makes killing illegal, having a higher number of regulations that effect the same result would not make us less free, which is why the quality of the regulations matter more than the quantity. I'm concerned with laws that limit freedom.)

As for the examples of curfews, I don't consider familial restrictions by a parent-child relationship a valid analogy, and I view all three curfews imposed by the different levels of government as invalid and unnecessary. The base issue with curfews is the same as with any other issue: does freedom of association give you the right to use force to curtail the freedom of other people? My answer to that is no; that your inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property justly derived remain inalienable by all others. Inalienability doesn't end at majority vote. That's what makes it inalienable.

Maybe it was a simple misunderstanding. I saw # of regulations as your addition not mine.
"That government is best which governs least" is from Henry David Thoreau.
It advocates for the smallest government practical.
It doesn't really equate to the quantity of regulations. It is also scope. Small government.

A "least" government can be considered as most local to the issue governed. The absolute most direct would be self government.

Whether your view of a curfew being valid or necessary, is somewhat less material than whether it is enforced (or even enforceable).
Whether a right is inalienable has a lot to do with what is doing the alienation.

We likely agree on general principles anyhow.