Culture Wars?

[otherone]

To answer your idiotic question, yes you have the right to knock them off of your pole. The justification is that it is your pole and you are the sovereign decision maker of what happens to it. The moral justification has nothing to do with the pole, but with your property in general. If you own property, then you are the sovereign decision maker of what happens to it.

The individual action of knocking the person to their death is not moral, whether or not you have the right to do it. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it morally acceptable. And if you are despicable person that would do such a thing, then the rest of society has the right to make life difficult on you, deny service in their establishments, pressure your employer to terminate you, etc.

There are plenty of immoral activities that are legal. Morality can't be the basis of Rights. Only property can.

[Natural Citizen]

To answer your idiotic question, yes you have the right to knock them off of your pole. The justification is that it is your pole and you are the sovereign decision maker of what happens to it. The moral justification has nothing to do with the pole, but with your property in general. If you own property, then you are the sovereign decision maker of what happens to it.

The individual action of knocking the person to their death is not moral, whether or not you have the right to do it. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it morally acceptable. And if you are despicable person that would do such a thing, then the rest of society has the right to make life difficult on you, deny service in their establishments, pressure your employer to terminate you, etc.

Oh, good. Welcom to my boobie trap.

So, then, Natural Law is out the window because the anarchist's form of heirarchy permits for the murder a human being since his right tolife was dictated by economic justification?

Do you see what you're saying here? I mean, really. Do you?

[Natural Citizen]

Ah, well, it's a good thing we have a state to take care of that then. I didn't read the whole thread anyway, so I may have missed it. I can't rep you anyway, so I'll owe you one.

You're going to have a State regardless. This is what you people aren't understanding.

In a socialist society, the socialist is going to come take your property at the barrel of a gun. Reason why is because he knows that his hierarchy is going to fail and he needs your wealth and your property in order to support his program. The socialist will never accept your right to take care of yourself and to not need anything from anyone. Never. There's no opting out.

[otherone]

Do you see what you're saying here? I mean, really. Do you?

Sure. It's moral to steal if you're starving to death. Good point.

[The Gold Standard]

Oh, good. Welcom to my boobie trap.

So, then, Natural Law is out the window because the anarchist's form of heirarchy permits for the murder a human being since his right tolife was dictated by economic justification?

Do you see what you're saying here? I mean, really. Do you?

What trap? What economic justification? Your right to your life derives from your right to your property. If you are on someone else's property, you have no rights. Unless they invited you on to that pole, then the owner transferred the right to your person to you, and they would have to assist you. If they didn't invite you onto the pole, then you are at the pole owner's mercy.

[Natural Citizen]

This is why nobody takes libertarians seriously. This is why we're always at the receiving end of everybody's jokes.

[otherone]

What trap?

It's a boobie trap because he says it is. Like his arguments. Because he says them. It's magical.

[Natural Citizen]

What trap? What economic justification? Your right to your life derives from your right to your property. If you are on someone else's property, you have no rights. Unless they invited you on to that pole, then the owner transferred the right to your person to you, and they would have to assist you. If they didn't invite you onto the pole, then you are at the pole owner's mercy.

Property is the principal material support of a man's God-given, unalienable, rights. Your rights to life and liberty do not come from your warez. They come from God. You have your warez because God gave you the right to them. You did not give you the right to them. And you do not decide another man's unalienable rights to life and liberty.

[Natural Citizen]

It's a boobie trap because he says it is. Like his arguments. Because he says them. It's magical.

You haven't even attempted to touch any argument I've made here.

[timosman]

You're going to have a State regardless. This is what you people aren't understanding.

In a socialist society, the socialist is going to come take your property at the barrel of a gun. Reason why is because he knows that his hierarchy is going to fail and he needs your wealth and your property in order to support his program. The socialist will never accept your right to take care of yourself and to not need anything from anyone. Never. There's no opting out.

Yeah, but they can force everybody to sing kumbaya and be merry. Mandatory fun ftw!

[The Gold Standard]

Property is the principal material support, of a man's God-given, unalienable rights. Your rights to life and liberty do not come for your warez. They come from God. You have your warezbecause God gave yoyu the right to them. You did not give you the right to them. And you do not decide another man's unalienable rights to life and liberty.

Your God given right is your right to property, from which you get your right to life and liberty. If you don't have the right to property, then you can't have a right to your life or liberty. You can rightfully be made a slave to whomever claims ownership over your property.

[The Gold Standard]

You're going to have a State regardless. This is what you people aren't understanding.

In a socialist society, the socialist is going to come take your property at the barrel of a gun. Reason why is because he knows that his hierarchy is going to fail and he needs your wealth and your property in order to support his program. The socialist will never accept your right to take care of yourself and to not need anything from anyone. Never. There's no opting out.

Then the socialist meets the same fate than any other robber would.

[otherone]

You haven't even attempted to touch any argument I've made here.

Of course I have. But I haven't because you say so. It's magical.

[timosman]

Then the socialist meets the same fate than any other robber would.

The justice is served ... eventually. Problem is it takes a lot of time and suffering.

[Natural Citizen]

Your God given right is your right to property, from which you get your right to life and liberty. If you don't have the right to property, then you can't have a right to your life or liberty. You can rightfully be made a slave to whomever claims ownership over your property.

The right to property is an indispensable, material support, of your God-given, unalienable rights to Liberty.

That's the correct way to word it.

[The Gold Standard]

The justice is served ... eventually. Problem is it takes a lot of time and suffering.

Possibly. But having a state doesn't change that. It only makes it worse.

[Natural Citizen]

Of course I have. But I haven't because you say so. It's magical.

Go color.

[Natural Citizen]

Anyway. Rev, you've got more patience for the riff raff than I do. Have fun.

[Origanalist]

You're going to have a State regardless. This is what you people aren't understanding.

In a socialist society, the socialist is going to come take your property at the barrel of a gun. Reason why is because he knows that his hierarchy is going to fail and he needs your wealth and your property in order to support his program. The socialist will never accept your right to take care of yourself and to not need anything from anyone. Never. There's no opting out.

What about in a non socialist society? Say as in a anarchist society?

[Origanalist]

Anyway. Rev, you've got more patience for the riff raff than I do. Have fun.

It's a damn good thing we have you two around, or all there would be is, riff raff, and we couldn't have that.

[otherone]

Go color.

Ya' know, if your reading comprehension skills were the equal of your hubris, we might have a productive discussion. But that would interfere with your non-axiomatic proclamations defended with derision. So I agree, coloring is intellectually superior to conversing with you.
In regards to Rev (Hanover Jane*), I don't think you and he are talking about the same thing in regards to social hierarchy.


*that was pretty frikkin clever.

[otherone]

It's a damn good thing we have you two around, or all there would be is, riff raff, and we couldn't have that.

I'm more a churl. Perhaps a blaggard.

[Natural Citizen]

What about in a non socialist society? Say as in a anarchist society?

Hey, O. Thank You. Really. I share Ron Paul's position on it. Anarchy is voluntary socialism. So how is it that you think anarchy is non-socialist?

Libertarianism gives full legal protection for anarchy (voluntary socialism.) That's okay with me so long as you're a true libertarian and have rejected the use of force because, then I don't have to worry about you. If you want to get together and have voluntary socialism, then, you're allowed to do that.

But..I should be allowed to opt out. And therein lies the problem. Voluntary socialism is so inefficient that the socialists already know that their system is going to fail so they use the force of a government gun to come and take money and property from the people who aren't socialists in order to subsidize their program.

Now, while Libertarianism allows for voluntary socialism, the socialists will never endorse the idea of you having your personal liberty where you can take care of yourself and not ask for anything from anyone else.

Really, I'm just quoting our namesake here.

[Raginfridus]

Really, I'm just quoting our namesake here.

He ain't my daddy.


States don't need to define borders, property, or liberty for mankind to prosper on the Earth. Societies don't need the State to continue, and many will continue regardless of who's won the Hill. The conceit we need States to define borders for our safety is pathetic, because most boundaries today fall along natural barriers. Humans don't need the State's social engineers to guide and police us. On the other hand, Anarchy implying lawlessness, hedonism, and cultural stagnation, the end of civilization, might makes right, and other spook stories - nobody wants these things.

Uruk and all it's descendant States have been founded solely to redistribute wealth into the hands of the mightier, and they've all done so through smooth speech, tricks, and enforcers. Mankind didn't need the Pharaohs to placate the gods, any more than we today need the State, which has always been meant mandatory Welfare. For these few and other reasons, I'm dissatisfied overall with both concepts of State and Anarchy.

[Origanalist]

Hey, O. Thank You. Really. I share Ron Paul's position on it. Anarchy is voluntary socialism. So how is it that you think anarchy is non-socialist?

Libertarianism gives full legal protection for anarchy (voluntary socialism.) That's okay with me so long as you're a true libertarian and have rejected the use of force because, then I don't have to worry about you. If you want to get together and have voluntary socialism, then, you're allowed to do that.

But..I should be allowed to opt out. And therein lies the problem. Voluntary socialism is so inefficient that the socialists already know that their system is going to fail so they use the force of a government gun to come and take money and property from the people who aren't socialists in order to subsidize their program.

Now, while Libertarianism allows for voluntary socialism, the socialists will never endorse the idea of you having your personal liberty where you can take care of yourself and not ask for anything from anyone else.

Really, I'm just quoting our namesake here.

Ron Paul did not say anarchism is voluntary socialism in that video and you're pulling out some obscure reference that has nothing to do with libertarianism. Where do you dream up this stuff?

[Swordsmyth]

He ain't my daddy.


States don't need to define borders, property, or liberty for mankind to prosper on the Earth. Societies don't need the State to continue, and many will continue regardless of who's won the Hill. The conceit we need States to define borders for our safety is pathetic, because most boundaries today fall along natural barriers. Humans don't need the State's social engineers to guide and police us. On the other hand, Anarchy implying lawlessness, hedonism, and cultural stagnation, the end of civilization, might makes right, and other spook stories - nobody wants these things.

Uruk and all it's descendant States have been founded solely to redistribute wealth into the hands of the mightier, and they've all done so through smooth speech, tricks, and enforcers. Mankind didn't need the Pharaohs to placate the gods, any more than we today need the State, which has always been meant mandatory Welfare. For these few and other reasons, I'm dissatisfied overall with both concepts of State and Anarchy.

Unfortunately there are no other choices, you have place your bet on one or the other. (Tribalism is a state)

Since there is a pretty good argument that anarchy will fall to any organized force intent on creating a state I would rather create the state and control it's form and limits.

[Natural Citizen]

Ron Paul did not say anarchism is voluntary socialism in that video and you're pulling out some obscure reference that has nothing to do with libertarianism. Where do you dream up this stuff?

Liberty-Responsibility is obscure. Libertinism has taken over and claimed libertarianism's identity.

I get this stuff from knowing what I'm talking about.

Ask any real anarchist what he thinks about capitalism and get back to me. Any real anarchist worth his weight in keystrokes will argue that there are capitalist transactions which are not voluntary. He'll argue that in order to maintain the structure of a capitalist society that it will require coercion which ultimately would violate anarchist principles. Ron Paul doesn't need to specifically say the words anyway. It should be commonly understood by anyone who is actually knowledgeable on the subject of Liberty-Responsibility.

Respectfully, Origanalist, the fact that you even ask me where I dream this stuff up tells me that you do not understand Liberty-Responsibility. It tells me that you likely do not really understand the ism which you've inserted into discussion. Unfortunately, it just confirms my first thought in my response here. Sad. I'll tell you, man, it's really getting to the point that in order to truthfully and effectively educate people on matters of Liberty-Responsibility, we have to go against our own in order to do so. Reason being is that it's our own who have bastardized it and turned it into a libertine circus.

[The Rebel Poet]

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it morally acceptable.

Morality can't be the basis of Rights.

A right is by definition the opposite of a wrong. Nothing immoral can be right, and nothing right can be immoral.

.

If you are on someone else's property, you have no rights. Unless they invited you on to that pole, then the owner transferred the right to your person to you

You don't sound like you've thought about the words you're throwing around. Rights are absolute, and cannot be given, taken, or transferred. Right and wrong, ergo your rights, exist regardless of where you are. And your right to your person is owned by no other, therefore no one, property owner or not, can possibly transfer it to you.

[The Rebel Poet]

I get this stuff from knowing what I'm talking about.

circular logic.

Ask any real anarchist what he thinks about capitalism and get back to me. Any real anarchist worth his weight in keystrokes will argue that there are capitalist transactions which are not voluntary. He'll argue that in order to maintain the structure of a capitalist society that it will require coercion which ultimately would violate anarchist principles.

I've never heard that before. Do anarchists on RPF say that(and could you provide examples)? Also, how are you defining "real anarchists"?

Ron Paul doesn't need to specifically say the words anyway.

didn't you claim he did say them in that video?

[Origanalist]

Liberty-Responsibility is obscure. Libertinism has taken over and claimed libertarianism's identity.

I get this stuff from knowing what I'm talking about.

Ask any real anarchist what he thinks about capitalism and get back to me. Any real anarchist worth his weight in keystrokes will argue that there are capitalist transactions which are not voluntary. He'll argue that in order to maintain the structure of a capitalist society that it will require coercion which ultimately would violate anarchist principles. Ron Paul doesn't need to specifically say the words anyway. It should be commonly understood by anyone who is actually knowledgeable on the subject of Liberty-Responsibility.

Respectfully, Origanalist, the fact that you even ask me where I dream this stuff up tells me that you do not understand Liberty-Responsibility. It tells me that you likely do not really understand the ism which you've inserted into discussion. Unfortunately, it just confirms my first thought in my response here. Sad. I'll tell you, man, it's really getting to the point that in order to truthfully and effectively educate people on matters of Liberty-Responsibility, we have to go against our own in order to do so. Reason being is that it's our own who have bastardized it and turned it into a libertine circus.

That is the biggest load of bullocks I have seen all year. Sad? Ya, no $#@!. You're in your own little sphere there buddy.