View Poll Results: Is It EVER Justifiable To Violate Someone's Rights To Prevent A Larger Rights Violation?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 46.15%
  • No

    7 53.85%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 115

Thread: Libertarian Pragmatism

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    "rights" only exist in context with government.
    Rights don't come from government; that is retarded. Rights are natural. You should listen to some Ron Paul.
    Amash>Trump

    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Just you? Just one person? No. A 1:1 trade-off (1 murder prevented per innocent person convicted) is pretty awful.

    But if it's, say, 10,000:1 (i.e. 10,000 murders prevented per innocent person convicted), definitely.

    And that's what we're talking about.

    It's completely feasible to reduce the risk of wrongful conviction to extremely low levels (just not strictly to 0%).

    That should be the aim, contra the lunatic goal of abolishing the judicial system altogether.
    so you would be good, sitting in your cell, wrongfully convicted, because it is part of creating a safe community?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Nice try. "Rights" are only relevant when one advocates for them. By petitioning the government. In the absence of government there is Natural Law. A man on on island has no rights.
    Is it wrong for man on said island to eat coconuts? If it is not wrong, then it is right, and he therefore has a right.
    Amash>Trump

    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy

  5. #64
    But, but, but, 'Responsibility to Protect! (R2P) and "Ghaddafi's army is taking viagra to mass-rape a village!" and "Those beautiful babies!" and "We can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud!" and "They don't love their children!"

    I mean if you, as an individual, decide to trespass or borrow a ladder to save a life - you have to be prepared to offer restitution for your actions.

    But this does not extend to giving your trust to a politician who says some "bad guy" "needs to go" and therefore demands a popular mandate to go to war.

    It doesn't even extend to Michele Obama violating the Consitution to make schoolchildren eat what she deems healthy.
    Last edited by merkelstan; 05-18-2017 at 07:36 PM.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    Rights don't come from government; that is retarded. Rights are natural. You should listen to some Ron Paul.
    I expected better from you.

    edit:
    I never wrote they came from government, only that the recognition of rights by government is their only value.
    Last edited by otherone; 05-18-2017 at 07:37 PM.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    Is it wrong for man on said island to eat coconuts? If it is not wrong, then it is right, and he therefore has a right.
    who decides?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    who decides?
    I expected better from you.
    Amash>Trump

    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    I expected better from you.
    In what regards?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    who decides?
    Anyone with brain enough to understand and demand his natural rights.

    In libertarian ethics, individual rights are derived from the Natural Law philosophy. There was a natural law tradition from antiquity and the middle ages. Natural law is the oldest and most frequently used concept of political theory.

    We consider rights to be inherent to the individual - not generated by man-made law. This means that rights are different from legal privileges which are granted by the ruler and can be rescinded at his will. Natural Rights are either given by God (Aquinas, 1225-1274) or inherent in man's nature (Hugo Grotius, 1583–1645). Many consider the idea of Natural Law to spring from the ancient Greeks: Aristotle (BC 384-322)... argues that aside from particular laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a common law or higher law that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2-8).

    The most influential NL philosopher is probably John Locke (1632-1704) whose ideas were the basis for England's Habeus Corpus Act and strongly influenced the Founders who wrote the US Bill of Rights.

    Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the topic. If you don't want to read much, at least read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philos...f_human_rights

    Then to learn the origins of the constitutional and libertarian position, it's probably most important to get to know Locke: https://fee.org/articles/john-locke-...-and-property/

    Then to learn the modern libertarian position, you'll need to read Rothbard's book, The Ethics of Liberty:
    http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Rothbard%20%28Murray%29%20-%20The%....

    As far as I understand it, Rothbard is basically the last word on libertarian rights theory, although AFAIK Hoppe did add one significant idea - that of the proof of self-ownership by Argumentation Ethics: https://mises.org/library/argumentat...self-ownership

    In a better world, this would be taught in schools. I do hope that this helps get you started on the subject.
    Last edited by merkelstan; 05-18-2017 at 07:43 PM.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post

    In libertarian ethics, individual rights are derived from the Natural Law philosophy. There was a natural law tradition from antiquity and the middle ages. Natural law is the oldest and most frequently used concept of political theory.

    We consider rights to be inherent to the individual - not generated by man-made law. This means that rights are different from legal privileges which are granted by the ruler and can be rescinded at his will. Natural Rights are either given by God (Aquinas, 1225-1274) or inherent in man's nature (Hugo Grotius, 1583–1645). Many consider the idea of Natural Law to spring from the ancient Greeks: "Aristotle (BC 384-322)... argues that aside from particular laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a common law or higher law that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2-8)."

    The most influential NL philosopher is probably John Locke (1632-1704) whose ideas were the basis for England's Habeus Corpus Act and strongly influenced the Founders who wrote the US Bill of Rights.

    Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the topic. If you don't want to read much, at least read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philos...f_human_rights

    Then to learn the origins of the constitutional and libertarian position, it's probably most important to get to know Locke: https://fee.org/articles/john-locke-...-and-property/

    Then to learn the modern libertarian position, you'll need to read Rothbard's book, The Ethics of Liberty:
    http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Rothbard%20%28Murray%29%20-%20The%....

    As far as I understand it, Rothbard is basically the last word on libertarian rights theory, although AFAIK Hoppe did add one significant idea - that of the proof of self-ownership by Argumentation Ethics: https://mises.org/library/argumentat...self-ownership

    In a better world, this would be taught in schools. I do hope that this helps get you started on the subject.
    I agree with everything you've written. I'm familiar with rights. But you've missed the point of context. Rights only come into play when relating to others. A man on on Island has no rights. He has no need of them.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    so you would be good, sitting in your cell, wrongfully convicted, because it is part of creating a safe community?
    I'd be screaming my head off about being innocent and trying to get a new trial.

    What I would most certainly not do is lobby for the abolition of the entire judiciary, to prevent similar injustices from recurring.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    Anyone with brain enough to understand and demand his natural rights.

    In libertarian ethics, individual rights are derived from the Natural Law philosophy. There was a natural law tradition from antiquity and the middle ages. Natural law is the oldest and most frequently used concept of political theory.

    We consider rights to be inherent to the individual - not generated by man-made law. This means that rights are different from legal privileges which are granted by the ruler and can be rescinded at his will. Natural Rights are either given by God (Aquinas, 1225-1274) or inherent in man's nature (Hugo Grotius, 1583–1645). Many consider the idea of Natural Law to spring from the ancient Greeks: Aristotle (BC 384-322)... argues that aside from particular laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a common law or higher law that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2-8).

    The most influential NL philosopher is probably John Locke (1632-1704) whose ideas were the basis for England's Habeus Corpus Act and strongly influenced the Founders who wrote the US Bill of Rights.

    Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the topic. If you don't want to read much, at least read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philos...f_human_rights

    Then to learn the origins of the constitutional and libertarian position, it's probably most important to get to know Locke: https://fee.org/articles/john-locke-...-and-property/

    Then to learn the modern libertarian position, you'll need to read Rothbard's book, The Ethics of Liberty:
    http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Rothbard%20%28Murray%29%20-%20The%....

    As far as I understand it, Rothbard is basically the last word on libertarian rights theory, although AFAIK Hoppe did add one significant idea - that of the proof of self-ownership by Argumentation Ethics: https://mises.org/library/argumentat...self-ownership

    In a better world, this would be taught in schools. I do hope that this helps get you started on the subject.
    +rep
    Amash>Trump

    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    Anyone with brain enough to understand and demand his natural rights.
    Missed your edit.
    Demand to whom?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    I agree with everything you've written. I'm familiar with rights. But you've missed the point of context. Rights only come into play when relating to others. A man on on Island has no rights. He has no need of them.
    Yes.

    Neither the lightning that may strike him, nor the poisonous asp, nor the lion who eats him can violate his rights: they are not conscious actors.

    [EDIT] And one goal of some states seems to be to reduce or inhibit consciousness in its citizens, particularly the soldiers.
    Last edited by merkelstan; 05-18-2017 at 07:57 PM.

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'd be screaming my head off about being innocent and trying to get a new trial.

    What I would most certainly not do is lobby for the abolition of the entire judiciary, to prevent similar injustices from recurring.
    Would you advocate for a system less inclined to convict innocent men?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Would you advocate for a system less inclined to convict innocent men?
    Obviously, I just said that should be the goal.

    And it's not rocket science. The traditional English system of law works pretty well. The main problem today is not people being convicted for things they didn't do, but people being convicted for things they did do which shouldn't be crimes in the first place.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-18-2017 at 08:06 PM.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Would you advocate for a system less inclined to convict innocent men?
    Advocacy of replacing the German constitution is a crime, so not here. Maybe in another place or another time. The idea of a marketplace for jurisprudence and protection services seems interesting.
    Last edited by merkelstan; 05-18-2017 at 08:06 PM.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    Yes.

    Neither the lightning that may strike him, nor the poisonous asp, nor the lion who eats him can violate his rights: they are not conscious actors.

    [EDIT] And one goal of some states seems to be to reduce or inhibit consciousness in its citizens, particularly the soldiers.
    This is the foundation of negative rights. To advocate a system that believes it's government's role to keep you safe is advocating for positive rights, the flaw of the OP. Natural Law says a man can defend himself from another man, just as against a lion. No government is necessary to justify his actions.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    Advocacy of replacing the German constitution is a crime, so not here. Maybe in another place or another time. The idea of a marketplace for jurisprudence and protection services seems interesting.
    I haven't come that far. I believe in the sovereignty of the individual, and that local government is the best solution.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Obviously, I just said that should be the goal.

    And it's not rocket science. The traditional English system of law works pretty well. The main problem today is not people being convicted for things they didn't do, but people being convicted for things they did do which shouldn't be crimes in the first place.
    Yes. Non-crimes are a problem, but our system of jurisprudence is stacked against the accused.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Natural Law says a man can defend himself from another man, just as against a lion.
    Is it possible for an individual to make a mistake while defending himself, and end up killing an innocent person?

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Is it possible for an individual to make a mistake while defending himself, and end up killing an innocent person?
    Of course. Is it a crime? Or a tragedy? Who decides?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Of course.
    Does that mean that self-defense should be prohibited?

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Does that mean that self-defense should be prohibited?
    Not at all. Who decides?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Not at all.
    So, you're not really opposed to punishing criminals, you're just opposed to the state punishing criminals?

    The risk of an innocent person being harmed is acceptable, so long as it's a private party taking the risk, and not the state?

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So, you're not really opposed to punishing criminals, you're just opposed to the state punishing criminals?

    The risk of an innocent person being harmed is acceptable, so long as it's a private party taking the risk, and not the state?
    LOL!
    Who decides?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    LOL!
    Who decides?
    Who decides what?

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Who decides what?
    Who decides if you've violated the rights of the innocent fella you mistakenly shot?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Who decides if you've violated the rights of the innocent fella you mistakenly shot?
    I think the state should decide; you think each individual should decide.

    Regardless of who's deciding, my point is that mistakes will be made; innocents will be harmed.

    Do you agree?

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I think the state should decide; you think each individual should decide.

    Regardless of who's deciding, my point is that mistakes will be made; innocents will be harmed.

    Do you agree?
    Slow down, Rev.
    My point is that rights only exist in context of government, which you've agreed to. Government is the arbiter.
    The individual, acting out of self-preservation, will make mistakes. Your argument that the state, acting out of self-preservation has the same right. It does not. I have a right to defend myself. The state has no rights. Unless the state is sovereign, like a king.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Gospel of Pragmatism
    By David Merrill in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-18-2018, 11:10 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-11-2012, 11:11 PM
  3. Ron Paul and pragmatism
    By Elwar in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-13-2011, 11:34 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 11:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •