Henrin;1061377912]Its great you had a point of your own to make, but my point was that freedom restricted by laws is a given.
Any and all laws are a restriction on freedom...and if you think it's a given, then I must point out that THIS comment does not jive with...
The fact is you can't restrict freedom and at the same time promote it.
...this comment. You contend that freedom with legal restrictions is a given. I would ask why? WHY must freedom be limited, no, inhibited, by laws? Do we not do this, impose this restriction on freedom, in order to promote a greater level of freedom? Seems to me, the idea flies just fine...
The idea doesn't fly. When you punish people for a right violation you don't promote freedom, but restrict it and that is it.
I restrict their freedom to violate other people's rights...those rights, by and by, being the enablers of THEIR freedom. Without rights, without those restrictions on freedom, very very very few people would ever actually be anything remotely resembling "free". See slavery.
When you take measures to keep people safe from these right violations you don't promote or create anything, but just violate the rights of people for the benefit of safety.
Much more than safety. If you think our rights exist only to keep us safe, then I gotta say...I over estimated you.
I'm not really saying anything here that has anything to do with libertarianism, so you can drop that too.
The core of what we are discussing has everything to do with libertarianism, and the primary difference between a minarchist, and an anarchist. Minarchists exist on the moral slippery slope of compromise, and some would call them (me) a small L libertarian, as in, not hardcore. The more hardcore libertarians adhere religiously to the NAP, which, when taken to the extremes that they (you?) often do, equals no government, since government is, and always will be, the single largest initiator of force/aggression against others. I put question marks after you, because I'm still not sure where you sit. Sorry if you're offended, I meant none.
It being optional doesn't change the fact they worked for the income by providing you a lap dance. By all accounts you should pay them for the service, but yes, tips are optional as it stands.
Not paying someone for services rendered, IE, an income, is not optional, and is illegal. Ergo, tips, which are completely optional, is not income. It is a gift. I know...splitting hairs. To compromise, I believe you are correct...gifts are NOT the most motivational thing out there. What motivates people are possibilities. The greater the odds of those possibilities coming to fruition, the more motivated people will be to achieve them. A stripper who thinks I am more likely to lay a big tip on her is gonna do more to impress me.
Besides the first sentence it is just a repeat of the first part. Would you like me to take on the first sentence?[/QUOTE]To be honest, I don't even remember what the second bit was about now, and doesn't really matter. I'm pretty sure we've gone past it already.