People who are denied their liberty are less productive, and feel less loyalty to their communities as they know that other members of those communities are inflicting injustice upon them. This weakens those communities, which makes them less able to compete with communities where people's rights to liberty are secured.Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010
Why is it wrong to weaken a community?
Nope. There is no way that ownership of land can be interpreted as ownership of oneself.
It's wrong to weaken one's own community because it has a strong prejudicial effect on one's evolutionary success. Under the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that shaped the human genome to enable morality to arise, it was more calamitous for the propagation of one's genes to be a member of a failed society than to die personally without posterity, because there were so many more copies of one's genes among the other members of one's community, who were mostly close relatives.
Why is it wrong to weaken ones own survival?
Because the very CONCEPT of "wrong" is a product of evolution that inherently places one's own (genetic) survival above all other considerations. The human capacity even to think in terms of right and wrong, which animals do not share, is deeper and more real than any definition of right and wrong that can ever be derived from it.
Murder is also a product of our evolution. We've evolved to be very efficient at killing each other. So murder must be another thing you think is "right", correct?
In other words, what you're giving us here is an argument that commits the naturalistic or is/ought fallacy. But you said you had a degree in philosophy from an internationally respected university, right? Did they teach you about valid and invalid arguments?
Last edited by Sola_Fide; 02-01-2012 at 03:43 AM.
Jan Helfeld is that you? ;-)
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
http://www.wealthandwant.com/
http://freeliberal.com/
Can't... or won't? Oh well, we'll never know I guess!
I only have so much time in life. Never shoot down, only shoot up, that's what they say. I have no desire to argue against any of its "points". The whole thing is pathetic on its face. I made what I feel was the most useful and honest response to it by simply documenting my reaction. It's junk. That's it. No one who thinks even remotely like me could possibly think that "wow, that video made some really good points." Anyone who could is a total lost cause.
You don't see the maternalism? This hapless, helpless, half-retarded "farmer in green" can't figure anything out for himself, just keeps getting taken advantage of by reality, and he needs you, redbluepill, to swoop in and protect him from the mean nasty world, and from his own prodigious stupidity.
Poverty is a solved problem. It's done. There is no poverty in the United States. It is completely impossible to starve to death in the U.S., no matter how unfortunate, useless, or lazy you are. End of story. Hand-wringing and belly-aching about "how oh how do we stop poverty" is an exercise in amusing me.
Dear Slimedia: We hate you utterly. Your days are numbered.
Cordially, Every Ron Paul Supporter on Earth.
WTF?
A deed of ownership and the rule of law.
Objectivism>Individualism>Constitutionalism>Capita lism>Freedom
CONCAP
Nonpartisan Constitutional Capitalist-20yr retired combat vet. and Oath Keeper. http://cnmdesign.com/page67.php
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote