Tab Content
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:12 PM
    I don't care for Dutch food. It's kind of starchy. Also, I think Scandinavian chicks are hot. And I like that they speak English very well.
    40 replies | 419 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:20 AM
    Oh, no, I was just curious. Libertarianism is accepted in so many different ways these days. I was just curious of how you defined Liberty as it related to the philosopihes referenced during discussion in that video is all. I don't want to debate you. Thanks for acknowledging my question, though. It was good form whether I agree with you or not.
    14 replies | 153 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:07 AM
    Out of curiosity alone, how do you define liberty? I won't debate you. You have my word. I'd just like to know how you define Liberty. Additionally, what is, in your view, the foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty as you define it?
    14 replies | 153 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:50 AM
    Yep. Clearly. Castle is far more principled.
    65 replies | 572 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:39 AM
    Eh. I've never heard of the guy. Heh. Really, I haven't.
    26 replies | 524 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:36 AM
    There for a while I was on the lookout for the most an-capish ancap of all on the board so I could pick a lively debate. Not for the purpose of debate, per se. Merely for the discussion on varying perceptions of fundamental principles and moral foundation. But I just kind of forgot about it.
    40 replies | 419 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:25 AM
    An-caps drive me nuts. Not for the reasons that you claim to observe, though, idiom. I don't really mess with them, though. I just let them go about their business so long as it doesn't seem to affect my day. I don't hate them or anything like that.
    40 replies | 419 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:12 AM
    Aaaaaaaw sht. Here we go again. Heh. It's getting ready to get busy up in this mofo. Is anything on fire yet? Doesn't seem like folks are going to take this particularly well out on the streets.
    8 replies | 128 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:32 AM
    Mm. Yeah. This brings to mind the fundamental principle of equality in Legal Justice. Particularly given Gary Johnson's position in support of a private prison industry. Equality in Legal Justice, of course, means equal treatment under equal laws. More precisely, laws that are expressive of "just powers" for the primary purpose of securing one's right to equal treatment under equal laws. To his credit, though, he accepts that the U.S. incarceration rate is a consequence of over-criminalization and the failed War on Drugs. The flipside of that, though, is that the current generation of casual pot smokers who support him for that reason alone aren't considerate of or particularly astute to the consequences referenced here in the former. It's unfortunate that friends aren't always led to think things through all the way. The reality, though, is that there are more states than the single state of New Mexico. And Johnson was, again, to his credit, realistic to acknowledge that while he, himself, didn't experience pressure to fill prison beds from special interests, that pressure to fill prison beds, indeed, might happen elsewhere in other states where the private prison model is applicable.
    162 replies | 1626 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:12 AM
    Continued - Over 55k Americans injured, killed by US police in just 1 yr – study Study - Perils of police action: a cautionary tale from US data sets
    7 replies | 181 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:41 AM
    Hey, that's a good idea, dannno. If you see any threads like that, will you let me know about them? Honest discussions about legitimate issues are some of my favorite things. They're few and far between when peeps is just trying to hurry up and get elected, though.
    34 replies | 478 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 11:15 PM
    I wish Sailingaway were still here. :cool:
    24 replies | 1346 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 11:14 PM
    Eh. don't know. I maintain that we have a one-party system masquerading as three these days. Really, the only way to see it for what it is, is to look. Know what I mean, jellybean?
    24 replies | 1346 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 11:01 PM
    Given your rejection of the critical nature of the fundamental principle of property in that you're led to minimize it to "cake", it is understood that you may also fail to recognize property's fundamental contribution to the legitimacy of the right of Life. Perhaps you may not believe that, but favor the terms of controversy from a perspective of party politics. I'm not sure what you believe, really. But planks are the works of Men, undergroundrr. They come in many shapes and sizes, too. And the works of men aren't often products of the fundamental moral foundation that establishes the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. In fact, they seldom are. You've projected one example of such an instance here in your statement. And you'd do well to pull this standard plank from your eye before it causes an infection that spreads.
    61 replies | 777 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 10:51 PM
    Some folks call an openly aggressive rejection of Man's right to Liberty itself "cake." That would be those who lack an understanding of what surmises the right to Liberty itself. These are the people who know nothing of Liberty at all. And their shallow assessment and dialogue with regard to the critical nature of the situation is pompous, to say the least. Those others, however, who do understand what Individul Liberty is and whom respect its benefits, correctly call it what it is. They call it forcing an Individual to relinquish his property to another Individual by way of the end of a barrel of a government gun. Some people, undergroundrr, understand that property rights are an indispensable and principal material support for Man's God-given unalienable rights. Most notably, Man's right to Liberty itself.
    61 replies | 777 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 06:03 PM
    I think it was Freedom itself they were reducing to a minimal "issue." I popped my mouth off about what I thought of the pompous position, though. Does that about cover it for you, euphemia? Do you have a clearer understanding of the pompous spew now? It's rather cut n dry if you ask me. By Ye fruits and all of that happy jazz. You know how that goes, I suppose. Heh.
    61 replies | 777 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 05:42 PM
    Cool flowers, donnay and Suz. I really like that red one.
    63 replies | 1630 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 05:48 AM
    Heh. I just noticed that this thread is going on 5 years old.
    24 replies | 1346 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 05:45 AM
    More precisely, more honestly, we have a one-party system masquerading as three at the present moment. If we're going to make a case for the one-party masquerade, then, let's make it correctly, please. The 2014 Mid-Term elections certainly did turn out voter numbers that we haven't seen in modern history in terms of Independent, Third Party, Green candidate support. Don't think for a second, though, that the establishment didn't notice it and that they aren't fighting back this time around. The candidates in the 2016 elections along with their policies are an indicator that the establishment has managed to recover and transist from a one-party system masquerading as two, to a one-party system masquerading as three. And the average schmuck, unfortunately, is eating it up like candy. To the extent that he/she provides the establishment an assist in the screwery.
    24 replies | 1346 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 02:19 AM
    Is (our) agenda, in your view, one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty fully or one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty piece-meal? I'm of the view that it is both dishonest and counterintuitive to create the illusion that Individuals or groups of Individuals may claim benefit to Individual Liberty without acknowledging, accepting and defending the foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty itself together with Individual Liberty's fundamental principles in whole. That is to say that if we reject and accept them piece-meal, then, by default, we will not benefit from them as an Indivisible whole at all. Anyway. I suppose I'm trying to better understand/measure the integrity of this "Liberty Campaign Evaluation" grading system. So, then, I have some questions if you'd consider reserving effort to acknowledge and address them precisely. Well. Really only two questions, I think. But they're honest questions that are offered in the sincere interest of stimulating functional dialogue as it relates to honest summation of one's so called Liberty grade as a prospective leader. More precisely, a president. Coincidentally, it should be noted, understood and agreed that government's only role is to protect Individual Liberty. Does the site (we) agree that the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself is that Individuals or groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves do not prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equally doing the same? If so, then, does the site (we) also accept that an open rejection of this primary fundamental principle is, by default, aggressive toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully? Surely, the site (we) must agree that Individuals should be free to own property and to exchange in trade without restriction provided they exchange in trade honestly. Gary Johnson, for the record, has openly acknowledged his position that he'd force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun. Gary Johnson, to be clear, professes this position under the banner of Liberty itself. That's a fundamental naw naw with the most critical of consequence if the position is not logically observed and rejected fully and immediately. Well...if (our) agenda is to forward the concept of Individual Liberty fully. The right to property, as you may know, Bryan, is an indispensable and principal material support for Man's God-given unalienable rights. Most notably, the right to Liberty itself. I will repeat that and I will underline it for sake of clarity and purpose to scope. Again... The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself.
    162 replies | 1626 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-25-2016, 11:58 PM
    A presidential candidate who is recklessly being promoted under the banner of Liberty and who openly admits a rejection of Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle is in no way a "pet issue." Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day. If one is so led to accept that a presidential candidate's openly admitted rejection of Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle is some kind of "pet issue", then one's priorities are misguided. And if ones priorities are misguided to that extent, then, one likely has no fundamental understanding of or regard for what Liberty fundamentally and truly is. The government has one role. It's only role is to protect Individual Liberty. Nothing else. That said, you'd likely do well to try to think things through better if you're going to pop your mouth off in such a pompous way about political counterintuitiveness, scooter. Because if you're organizing in a political manner to promote a presidential candidate who openly admits a rejection of Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle, then, you're functioning in a manner that is politically and patently aggressive toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully. To your credit, though, it is true that most people who are led to indulge in coercion understand little of its function and often demonstrate very little regard for its consequence. People want to feel like a participant. People want to feel relevant. They want to feel like they are contributing to something. I get it. I really do. And while pride is certainly an ignorant sin, I can't be that Judge. Nor will I attempt to be. But if you're going to make a claim like you just did here about Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle being a "pet issue" or regard for it being extremely counterproductive, then, you'd sure as sht do well to think it through because you're going to be expected to support the claim.
    38 replies | 628 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-25-2016, 10:22 PM
    Why do you hate Freedom?
    58 replies | 649 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-25-2016, 10:19 PM
    It's not only that he doesn't believe in private property rights, but he openly and publicly professes that he'd force an Individual to relinquish his property to another Individual at the barrel of a government gun. True Liberty, as you know, means that an Individual or a group of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that those rules don't prohibit another Individual or another group of Individuals from equally doing the same. Gary Johson's admitted position is fundamentally contrary to Liberty itself as it is correctly defined. Consequently, Gary Johnson's admitted position is aggressive toward and contrary to the concept of Individual Liberty fully. The fact that some friends here, on a platform which prides itself on its mission toward the cause of Liberty, promotes a presidential candidate whose admitted position is patently contrary and aggressive to the fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself and, more disturbingly, in the name of Liberty in a "2016 Liberty Campaigns" sub-forum tells me that I could never again trust any of them to honestly speak to, lead, or make any logical judgement in any instance whereas the true and fundamental cause of Liberty is at stake. I don't really care if people support Gary Johnson. All I expect is that people don't promote him in the name of Liberty. His admitted position is a patent rejection of its most fundamental principle. And, again, to reject Individual Liberty's most fundmental principle is to reject Individual fully. It is not possible to obtain or possess Individual Liberty without accepting its fundamental principles and moral foundation as a whole. They must be accepted as a whole and in full in order to enjoy its benefits as an Indivisibe whole. They cannot be accepted and rejected piece-meal. To recklessly accept and reject them in a piece-meal manner is to sacrifice their benefits in whole.
    58 replies | 649 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-25-2016, 10:08 PM
    Does he profess his position under the banner of Liberty?
    58 replies | 649 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-25-2016, 09:47 PM
    I sent it precisely to whom it was intended.
    61 replies | 777 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    07-25-2016, 09:41 PM
    Again...Gary Johnson admittedly and publicly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. Gary Johnson, admittedly, would force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun. Gary Johnson openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle in the name of Liberty itself, no less. His admitted position is one that, because it rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle, is patently a wilful aggression toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully. Please consider re-evaluating the summation with which you've concluded your assessment so that you may better understand the foundation for moral code that truly defines a decent, honest good guy. Seems like the foundation for moral code with which you've premised your assessment isn't the relative foundation for moral code that establishes the principles of Individual Liberty. Thank You, 69360.
    58 replies | 649 view(s)
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
13,290
Posts Per Day
8.03
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
1
Most Recent Message
07-24-2016 10:03 AM
General Information
Join Date
01-16-2012
Referrals
0