Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's the best thing since sliced bread because he is helping us get what we want. I don't care what his personal beliefs are. All I care about is that we have a hot economy with record low unemployment, two new conservative SCOTUS Justices, a tax cut, a roll back of the federal bureaucracy, etc.
Sliced bread is cool. I don't love it more than my family. To each his (or her) own.
Didn't have one. It was a NAP violation. It happens. You're 0-1.
The consensual agreements would exist in a State-free world. That is what I was implying. Obviously a dentist can fill a cavity regardless if he has a paper stamped from a government agency downtown or not.
You're 0-2.
i don't know what this means so I can't comment on it. You can elaborate if you like. You remain 0-2.
When you use aggression against another you are inherently making the claim of a higher right on the life of that individual you've violated. I find it morally wrong. It doesn't mean it's morally wrong for you. I can't collectively assign morality. I'm not a statist. If you try to violate me I will simply use self-defense or contractual recourse if we are in such an arrangement in a free society.
You're 0-3.
Natural rights are simply self-ownership and private property rights. If you've read Rothbard as you claim you will know that if you don't believe in natural rights I can always fall back on economic justifications for the moral and logical consistency of capitalism. It doesn't matter either way why I'm not beating you to a pulp as I relieve you of your wallet. All that matters is that I'm not doing it.
The position is clear: if you believe in the social contract you are morally and logically wrong. Not unless you are prepared to defend it. Sliding out of a vagina is one hell of a ride but I doubt this mysticism of agreement is likely to have taken place.
You're 0-4.
In order for a stateless society to function I will admit that it would take a solid percentage of people believing in the moral and logical principles of anarchy/capitalism. That's because when statists turn their backs on the victims of the State they continue to support the cycle of preordained violence.
A private entity, by default, can't commit violence because it is capitalist. Violence doesn't occur in capitalism. You are referencing various States or their sub-States (corporations, religious organizations, street gangs).
Finished up at 0-5.
"No, it's not." End of your "argument."
1. You ignored my examples and continue to engage in argument by assertion. Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy, by the way. In Galt's Gulch, when you must pay Joe's Healthcare Co. to stay alive, do you reckon that will be a "consensual arrangement?" How about Roark's Energy Co. to heat your home and power your vehicle?
"Didn't have one. It was a NAP violation. It happens. You're 0-1."
2. Yes, you were indeed oppressed by your elders telling you what to do. Children have a natural right to do as they wish, so long as...wait for it..."they don't hurt anyone else!" Freedom, baby! This principle will also work well in Galt's Gulch, provided the self-obsessed folks in that jurisdiction find time for children when they're not arguing over who transgressed whom.
"The consensual agreements would exist in a State-free world. That is what I was implying. Obviously a dentist can fill a cavity regardless if he has a paper stamped from a government agency downtown or not."
3. Consent does not hinge on whether the state is involved in the transaction. This is something you clearly misunderstand. When you need medical care in Galt's Gulch to survive and Companies X, Y, and Z are the only ones providing that care, you can perform whatever mental contortions you wish to arrive at the conclusion that you are freely choosing to use their services, but in reality, you are not entering into a "consensual arrangement" with them. You have no choice. Let me make it even clearer for you: there need not be a gun pointed at you by Da State for there to be a situation in which you are compelled to do something. You enter into these non-consensual "arrangements" every day of your life, whether you recognize it or not.
"i don't know what this means so I can't comment on it. You can elaborate if you like. You remain 0-2."
4. I know you don't. That's why I'm again educating you upon it. It remains to be seen whether you are open to seeing it or whether you are ideologically hamstrung and unwilling to be skeptical.
"When you use aggression against another you are inherently making the claim of a higher right on the life of that individual you've violated. I find it morally wrong. It doesn't mean it's morally wrong for you. I can't collectively assign morality. I'm not a statist. If you try to violate me I will simply use self-defense or contractual recourse if we are in such an arrangement in a free society."
5. Ah, so morality is "individually-assigned." Okay, good. By what standard do you individually arrive at the conclusion that making a claim on someone else's life is immoral? You will recall that I asked that you not engage in circular logic in explaining this, so I will again await your answer.
"Natural rights are simply self-ownership and private property rights."
6. I asked you who determines what natural rights are. How do you know which rights are "natural" and which are not?
"A private entity, by default, can't commit violence because it is capitalist. Violence doesn't occur in capitalism. You are referencing various States or their sub-States (corporations, religious organizations, street gangs)."
7. Even in the deepest throes of libertarianism, I never would have made such a stupid statement. "Private entities are capitalist???" Do you have any understanding of what "capitalism" even means? Maybe we should have you start by defining "private entity." You clearly don't understand either of those terms, nor both of them put together. "Sub-states?" Do you understand that you don't get to make up definitions for words when they don't serve your purposes? Gee, that sounds an awful lot like what you would accuse "statists" of doing when they do something like call government spending "investments."
Regarding your assertion that "violence doesn't occur in capitalism," provide some evidence for this assertion.
Republican thinking is generally libertarian in nature, holding that the individual is supreme. This is in stark contrast to today's liberals, who don't believe in the rights of the individual, instead trusting in the collective and will do anything to protect that.
How does that align with things like the Patriot Act?
Sliced bread is cool. I don't love it more than my family. To each his (or her) own.
Because we love our families as an extension of ourselves, we must fight the Democrats and liberal policies. Their increasing insistence on the collective and attempts to squash the individual must be countered at every turn, including the use of Donald Trump to do so.
Because we love our families as an extension of ourselves, we must fight the Democrats and liberal policies. Their increasing insistence on the collective and attempts to squash the individual must be countered at every turn, including the use of Donald Trump to do so.
Hear, Hear, HEAR!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
How does that align with things like the Patriot Act?
It's also worth noting that the behavior of groups like ANTIFA, and individual collections of Snowflakes harassing conservatives in off-duty situations, marks them as a pretty snotty, disrespectful, and unsympathetic lot, as demonstrated below:
It's also worth noting that the behavior of groups like ANTIFA, and individual collections of Snowflakes harassing conservatives in off-duty situations, marks them as a pretty snotty, unsympathetic lot:
Ah, equating a couple dozen or hundred people with a law that affects 100's of millions (or billions).......typical libertarian thinking.
False equiv. seems to be another place "conservatives" and libertarians are joined at the hip.
Hong Kong and Singapore...what a reach! Communist China apparently governs the perfect world. Also, living in city-states packed in like sardines...yeah, I think I've heard Libertarians pushing that - NOT.
What are the gun laws in Hong Kong? How about Freedom of Speech?
Next thing y'all are going to tell us is that Rand Pauls gated community is the perfect example of Libertarianism.
C'mon, you can do better. I know you must have gotten those Hong Kong talking points from somewhere besides your own brain - was it Heritage or Cato (the later fully owned by the Koch Brothers)?
When I think of a Libertarian, I think fiscally conservative and socially liberal with the exception of the Second Amendment, which they usually line up with conservatives on.
I don't think they're any smarter, or dumber than anyone else, nor do I think they're better or worse people. They just have a different viewpoint than I do.
I’m registered as a Libertarian. I’ve not had anyone make a comment one way or the other when I tell them. I don’t think a lot of people really know that much about what it is. I’m not in complete agreement with their platform but more so than other parties.
BTW, political parties are anathema to true liberty IMO. They have regimented platforms and try to persuade people to buy into the whole ball of wax. It interferes with evaluating an individual solely on his or her merits. I hate political parties and wish the whole structure would collapse. George Washington was right.
Not all Republicans are libertarians, but no Democrat is a libertarian.
The vast majority of Republicans and Democrats are nearly identical. Any variation is a rounding error.
I'm none of the above but to note, it is the (D)'s that want people to be able to freely smoke up, not Republicans. It is (D)'s that don't want to stop women from having an abortion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
