Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

I am pretty sure you don't actually know the American definition of socialist.

Depend on which one you speaking about. I think on the one used for the whole "Obama is a socialist" idiocy.

First thing: Words can have differing meanings in differing places.

Secondly and more importantly: You might as well say the U.S is hilarious because they think Obama was born whoknowswhereastan.

The think the idea is the "methods and solutions" you suggested were all pretty crazy.

Like which? Which methods and solutions have I proposed that were crazy?

Quote me please.

If a man with the power to harm you chooses to harm you, a law stating that he can't will not stop him. In fact, laws don't state that you "can't" do things. There is no law that says you "can't" murder people, and even if there were it would be meaningless. There are only laws saying that if you murder someone, other people have agreed to do something to you in return. "Law" is a way of legitimizing mob rule. It's a way of doing exactly the same thing, but feeling good about it by exteriorizing the decision process.

I assert that exteriorizing responsibility for choice and the consequences of choice is not beneficial to a conscious entity.

If you don't send your children to school in this country, the government might fine or imprison you, and in some cases take your children away.

why would his choice to live matter more then another one's choice to kill him?

Because that's the basic premise.

You, as an individual capable of choice, can only choose what you yourself do. As a being engaging in exchange with others, you are able to choose what you are willing to give, and what you are willing to accept. You cannot choose what others are willing to give or accept.

You can choose to give love, or you can choose to give hurt, or you can choose to give anything you want. But you can't compell someone to love you. You can't compell someone to hurt you. You can't compel someone to give you what you want them to give. You do not choose for others. You choose for yourself. And conversely, others can choose for themselves, and they cannot choose for you.

If you wish to harm others, or if you wish to shower them with love and affection, there is no value judgement of this. But it is improper for you to compel them to accept what you offer. If someone wishes to love you, or to harm you, that is permissible. But it is your sovereign right as a conscious entity to accept or reject what they offer, if you so choose.

Where you really started to go downhill.

Poverty does not exist in a society with no money.

The government does not "give" anyone a voice. The function of law is not to "create" freedom. You already have a voice, you already have freedom. By definition the function of law and government is to restrict freedom. That's their specific purpose.

This question is exactly what libertarianism solves, by not creating these organizations. If you're concerned about being harmed by big, collective structures like governments and syndicates...then why are you creating them?

To the people who say that "oh, but without laws and police we'd have crime" I respond that yes, that might be true...but even with laws and police you still have crime anyway. But, by having police you also create police brutality. With no police there is no police brutality.

The above quote is chocked full of crazy.

And you pretty much repeat that for the rest of the thread ignoring peoples questions to pretending to address them but not really doing so.

Ok I'm beginning to be seriously annoyed now.

I am really not sure what you truly want. You say you want a question and answer thing here, but you are smart enough to know that a debate is both more practical and in many ways more informative.

Not to mention that in this matter you are not non-argumentative as you yell at everyone else to be. 1 2 3 4

Although one might see you as politer then some, you are saying exactly the same thing as the people are you getting annoyed at.

[LordBucket]

The above quote is chocked full of crazy.

Call it irreconcilable worldviews then. But a few of the quotes you've described as crazy are fairly standard legal jurisprudence. If you have any friends who are attorneys, ask them to take a look at the comments about how law doesn't say you can't murder people, and that law and government do not create freedom, but by definition restrict it. See what they say.

*shrug*

[Criptfeind]

-------------------------- This is where the point is.













-------------------------- This is where your head is.

[Leafsnail]

Ok I'm beginning to be seriously annoyed now. Don't discuss the merits of Libertarianism he or I'll lock. Make another thread for that. And therefore don't attack LordBucket on his beliefs, because that's not the point.

I'll say it again - if your intention is "Find out what people who are generally called liberation think" then you probably don't want to be talking to LordBucket.  His viewpoint goes far beyond what almost all libertarians think (most libertarians, for instance, think there should be laws against murder and some method to stop their form of government from being immediately replaced by something else).

[LordBucket]

if your intention is "Find out what people who are generally called liberation think" then you probably
don't want to be talking to LordBucket.  His viewpoint goes far beyond what almost all libertarians think

I think that's why he's trying to get a reply from Montague. Personally I've been trying to explain the core philosophical principal, acknowledging that it can be applied in many ways. I've very clearly not been asserting that "we should do X."

If you want a more "standard party platform" then some common issues have been mentioned both by myself and others:

* Taxes
 * Traffic fines
 * Compulsory school attendance
 * Imprisonment for failing to comply with any of the above
 * Agressive military acts upon foreign nations

Is commonly where the line is drawn. Most Libertarians find the above to be undue infringement upon an individual's liberty and therefore oppose such when they appear as laws.

[Montague]

By monopoly of violence, I mean that the government controls and authorizes all use of violence in the society. This means the government employs violence against actual and potential hostile foreign governments, armed rebel factions, criminals, terrorists, roving rape-gangs, ect. They could extend this authority to citizens, private security, to use violence in accordance with laws. This doesn't mean corporations can form their own private army and use them to do whatever they like.

Basically, a libertarian government is minarchy, a government that simply acts as a policeman and protects individuals and maintains rule of law. Military, police, courts these are the primary function of any government and basically the only responsibilities of a libertarian government.

The basic idea is a government that allows people to live as free as possible with minimal taxation collected, to provide only the bare minimum of services to maintain order and keep everyone from being raped and murdered to death.

Also yes, it is basically a philosophy that places focus on the individual over the collective. The smallest minority is the single individual and the idea is that individuals should not be sacrificed for any need of a collective.

[Phmcw]

But the individual can be sacrificed to the odd of nature (for lack of a better word). Let's take a simple example, in that libertarian world, how does a person seriously crippled survive?
Or let's say the top 1% control 95% of the resources (not unlikely, just watch history), how do the bottom ten % survive?

It's not a criticism, just, well, two questions.

@Cript : it's rather the fact that it bothered anyone. "That guy isn't born on American soil, surely that is a real point to bring against him!"
I mean, why even bother?
The whole "he's a Muslim" was hilarious as well but the he's a SOCIALIST therefore the Antichrist (the sad thing is that, well, some peoples said that seriously) won the mark given that "socialists" (completely different meaning, for instance ours doesn't eat babies, though they might get off with your tax dollars) are part of our political landscape since forever.
If you want a laugh at our expense, look at our internet infrastructure.


... hmmm well, I don't want to scare them away with conversion attempt. Surely giving example of what you think would work or asking what they would do to replace X is perfectly valid questions but once they respond "well X would work", I'd rather not have peoples saying "no it won't, (insert here derogatory comment)" but rather, if you don't see how, "well why would it work?".
If you think it won't work, fine, but myself I'm more interested in knowing what the whole Libertarian movement is about and why do they think it's a good idea.

I must admit I don't see it working, but that's for another thread, with participant willing to debate those issues.

[LordBucket]

Apparently people are reporting me, and I'm getting moderator warnings for comments in this thread, despite the fact that i can see 2-3 other people talking about exactly the same things I was reported for.

So I guess if you people are going to abuse moderators to make sure only your side gets told, you can have a one-sided conversation on your own.

I'm out.

[darkflagrance]

Apparently people are reporting me, and I'm getting moderator warnings for comments in this thread, despite the fact that i can see 2-3 other people talking about exactly the same things I was reported for.

So I guess if you people are going to abuse moderators to make sure only your side gets told, you can have a one-sided conversation on your own.

I'm out.

I was only lurking in this thread, but this seems uncalled for; I don't know why people would report someone in the very thread designed to ask that same someone questions and find out their perspective! Personally speaking, I learned a great deal with the comments of LordBucket, Montague, and others.

[Vector]

I suspect it was the comparison of the government to prison rape.

[ChairmanPoo]

The moderators check the context of the conversation, not just the reported posts. Buckey's complains are groundless.

[Phmcw]

Yeah, learned a lot thank you lordbucket and montague.
Now time to lock this before it rot.