Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 87 of 87

Thread: Culture Wars?

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    A right is by definition the opposite of a wrong. Nothing immoral can be right, and nothing right can be immoral.
    This is absolute gibberish. A "right" has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    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.
    Your rights are absolute up until they infringe on the rights of another. Your property right to your person and liberty is absolutely subject to someone else if you are violating their property rights.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Pierz, you didn't answer my question, bud.

    Wuh hah hapen wuh, I had asked if a guy is hanging onto your pole in order to save his own life, are you justified in knocking him off of it just because it's your pole?

    So. Are you? Yes or no? It's a rather direct question.

    Second part of the question was that, if so, then what primary foundation for moral code gives you that justification to dictate such?

    You didn't answer that question either.

    With regard to my question about whether whatever is voluntary also ethical, agreed. Not everything voluntary is necessarily moral. Now this presents a problem for you. I'll tell you why. Immoral is the wrong word. Immoral demands that one have a foundation for moral code with an understanding of right and wrong.

    The correct word is anti-moral. The reason that is the correct word is because any heirarchy demands obedience. Again, obedience is obedience regardless of whether it is willing obedience or unwilling obedience.
    i ignored your question because it is a pointless fantasy. Just like aliens on a mission from Zurgtopia.

    Right and wrong have little to do with what is allowed by law and what is not. Human rights are not based on right or wrong or any moral code.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Every social order, including anarcho-capitalism, is maintained by force. In anarcho-capitalism, private defense agencies enforce the social order; in minarchism, the state enforces the social order. The crux of our disagreement concerns how those who wield the force will behave. Anarcho-capitalists predict that they will voluntarily adhere to the rules of the market. Minarchists predict that they will use the force at their disposal for selfish, criminal purposes (as those who presently wield the force do).



    No society of any consequence has ever, in human history, organized itself without the state. Anarcho-capitalists assume that, absent the state, private persons/businesses would just continue doing what they're doing (i.e. interacting fairly peacefully). Minarchists appreciate that the only thing preventing certain greedy and powerful people from bullying the rest of us is the existence of any even bigger bully, who doesn't like competition.
    Disagree. The presence of protection services does not impose order by force. For example: I pay a group to protect my home. That means anyone coming to my home and violating my property may be met with force. But what do those police force not do? They don't go to my neighbor's house and force him or her to do what I want. Defense is not imposition. That is anarchy.

    Minarchy, and every other form of Statism, is when you send your "protection services" out to violently attack others, extorting from them their property in exchange for the promise that you won't kill them, THIS time. That isn't social order. It isn't even civilization. It is banditry and barbarism.

    Yes, and for millions of years no society of any "consequence" (a truly subjective and meaningless term based entirely on who is speaking and what they think should be valued) ever organized itself without a nobility and official aristocracy. Yet we can do it today. The past does not dictate the future. Stop trying to stall human social evolution.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    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?
    No, because you clearly don't have an understanding of rights, anarchy, or morality.

    Anarchy doesn't permit for murder. Not because murder is immoral though, but because it is a violation of property rights. You are falsely conflating two things -morality and human rights- and saying the absence of an order built on one means the lack of the other. This is simply a false assumption and not true.

    Further, the deep irony is that you are accusing anarchy of allowing for murder while defending a system literally built upon murder. The basic claim of Statism is that the State has the power to murder you for disobeying its dictates. That is what the monopoly on violence is all about. If your claim is that all systems of government that institutionalize and legitimize murder are false then you have set a trap that destroys your own argument- because Statism is institutionalized and legitimized murder. Your own argument damns what you are attempting to defend.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    Every social order, including anarcho-capitalism, is maintained by force. In anarcho-capitalism, private defense agencies enforce the social order; in minarchism, the state enforces the social order. The crux of our disagreement concerns how those who wield the force will behave. Anarcho-capitalists predict that they will voluntarily adhere to the rules of the market. Minarchists predict that they will use the force at their disposal for selfish, criminal purposes (as those who presently wield the force do).
    Disagree. The presence of protection services does not impose order by force. For example: I pay a group to protect my home. That means anyone coming to my home and violating my property may be met with force.
    QED

    But what do those police force not do? They don't go to my neighbor's house and force him or her to do what I want. Defense is not imposition. That is anarchy.
    I didn't say anything about "imposition." I didn't say anyting about whether the force is just or unjust.

    I just said that anarcho-capitalism, like minarchism, is maintained by force.

    By your own words, above, you agree.

    The past does not dictate the future.
    The past is the only basis for making predictions about the future.

    I assume you would agree with me that anarcho-communism (i.e. common storehouse, everyone can take what he likes, whether he works or not) is not feasible. Why is that? It's conceivable that people could behave that way, isn't it? So why do we conclude that it's extremely unlikely that they actually would behave that way?

    ...maybe it has something to do with how people have behaved in the past?

  8. #66
    Responses in bold.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post



    I didn't say anything about "imposition." I didn't say anyting about whether the force is just or unjust.

    I just said that anarcho-capitalism, like minarchism, is maintained by force.

    By your own words, above, you agree.


    You're conflating different things. Anarchy is maintained by a variety of methods, one of them being force.

    Statism, minarchist and all others, are not maintained. They are imposed. There is an important difference there.


    The past is the only basis for making predictions about the future.

    I assume you would agree with me that anarcho-communism (i.e. common storehouse, everyone can take what he likes, whether he works or not) is not feasible. Why is that? It's conceivable that people could behave that way, isn't it? So why do we conclude that it's extremely unlikely that they actually would behave that way?

    ...maybe it has something to do with how people have behaved in the past?
    Voluntary communes happen all the time. There are plenty that take place now. Is it feasible that a group of people should decide to live together and treat all their property the same? Sure. But that is the power of voluntaryism. Things that the State can never make work by force will function when everyone chooses to engage in it willingly.


    Further, the success or failure of anarcho-communist communes has nothing to do with proving your argument, which is based on entirely subjective preferences anyway. The past does not dictate the future. We live today without the need of many institutions that the past found "necessary."

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    You're conflating different things. Anarchy is maintained by a variety of methods, one of them being force.
    Let me ask you this: What would happen in the hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society if there were no private defense agencies?

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Let me ask you this: What would happen in the hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society if there were no private defense agencies?
    What kind of idiotic question is this? What would happen in a hypothetical state with no police or military or any kind of armed government agents?

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I just said that anarcho-capitalism, like minarchism, is maintained by force.
    Yes, but the difference between anarcho-capitalism and every other system is that it is only maintained by defensive force.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    What kind of idiotic question is this? What would happen in a hypothetical state with no police or military or any kind of armed government agents?
    In a minarchist society, the state wields ultimate power. It restrains those less powerful than itself, but more powerful than the masses, from preying on the masses. In a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society, private defense agencies perform the same function; they wield ultimate power, which prevents the next-most-powerful entities from preying on the people. My point is that, if it strikes you as dangerous and absurd to abolish the private defense agencies, it is; and for exactly the same reason, it is dangerous and absurd to abolish the state. When you abolish the entity/entities which wield ultimate power, you don't abolish the position "wielder of ultimate power," you just bestow it on the next person in line. Kill the king, the duke becomes a king, etc. As Moldbug would say, echoing physics, sovereignty is conserved. Abolish the private defense agencies, and those criminals which they detrred from robbing Pierz's house aren't deterred; they're in charge. Abolish the state, and whatever the next most powerful entities are (perhaps large corporations, perhaps tribal groups, depends on the society in question) take charge.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Yes, but the difference between anarcho-capitalism and every other system is that it is only maintained by defensive force.
    Anarcho-capitalists are expecting those who wield the ultimate force to use it in accord with libertarian ethics.

    That expectation has no rational basis.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-20-2017 at 12:59 PM.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That expectation has no rational basis.
    As does the expectation that a state protects the masses from being violated. It merely positions itself as the primary violator.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    As does the expectation that a state protects the masses from being violated. It merely positions itself as the primary violator.
    I don't think you (and I'm not picking on you, this applies to virtually all ancaps) really understand what we minarchists are saying. Please listen carefully. We're not saying that the state is better than anarcho-capitalism, or that the state does a better job of protecting people than would hypothetical private defense agencies. We're saying anarcho-capitalism is impossible. We're not defending anything the state does (hence all your points about how bad the state is are irrelevant). We're noting that there is no alternative to the state (other than civil war, which will only lead to the creation of a new state in short order anyway). The state "protects the masses from being violated" in the sense that the alternative to the state is civil war, which would means a lot more violations.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Not because murder is immoral though, but because it is a violation of property rights. You are falsely conflating two things -morality and human rights
    Well, I disagree, Pierz. In fact, the only real clarity here seems to be that it's you who does not understand. And that's okay. We're here to learn, right?

    I'll explain it for you with a mixture of my own words and a few references from a very good book on the topic specifically.

    Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because they are given by his Creator. More clearly, Man's rights are unalienable based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. In other words, Pierz, Liberty does not exist in a secular vacuum. Just as Man alone cannot originate life, man alone cannot obtain Liberty without Divine sanction. Divine saction is Liberty's primary foundation for moral code. This primary foundation for moral code is what endows you with your right to claim its benefits. You see?

    Now. Lacking this belief, which it appears that you do lack, there is no moral basis for any claim that one's Natural, God-given rights are unalienable for any claim to the benefits following this concept.

    Do you understand that? God-given rights are Natural Rights, possessed by Man under the Laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God.

    You (Man) have/has no power to dispose of or alienate or barter or gift God-given rights.

    So we get back to Liberty-Responsibility again. Now, what does that mean? Explained country simple it becomes an algorithm of words to live by (aka proper Man-to-Man relations) based on what I've just shared in the few sentences above. Which is: For every right there is a correlative, inseparable duty. For every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility. Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. Umkay?

    There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable.



    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    No, because you clearly don't have an understanding of rights, anarchy, or morality.
    Rinse and repeat my previous response for clarity.


    Anarchy doesn't permit for murder.
    Clearly it does. What is legal as a consequence of a worldly legality created by a man and based on a man's anti-moral (since to call it immoral pre-supposes that you base your sytem on Natural Law...which you clearly don't) whims and what is Lawful in sight of God's Law are two entirely opposing concepts. Again, see above.



    Not because murder is immoral though, but because it is a violation of property rights.
    Okay, so you're God, then, Pierz? Your property rights are not because of you. Your property rights come as a result of your Divine origin.
    Your right to property is the primary material support for your God-given rights Inivisibly, however, so you have it about a quarter correct.



    You are falsely conflating two things -morality and human rights- and saying the absence of an order built on one means the lack of the other. This is simply a false assumption and not true.
    Nope. It's absolutely true, Pierz. Sorry. The truth do sting, though, don't it?

    What you're actually teetering on is globalism. Which seems to be a trend with you if I recall correctly.

    Really, though, libertarianism gives total permission for voluntary socialism (anarchy) so long as you oppose force.

    Good luck.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-20-2017 at 02:29 PM.

  17. #74
    Question for any of the ancaps reading this:

    Why does the state force people to pay taxes, rather than attempt to sell its services on the market?

  18. #75
    The most confounding, observable, problem that is witnessed quite a bit, particularly when listening to or reading the words of new age self-defined libertarians (more often these are merely confused libertines, however) is that property rights are only understood or accepted so far as the right to possess material things alone. To their credit, this shortcoming is not their fault. It's just the simple fact of not knowing something. Although it does present a conflict of interest when accompanied by arrogance in ignorance.

    Property rights are much more than the right of possessing a material thing. A lot of people stop right there. This is a mistake.

    Man's God-given rights in general are his property. Man has not only a right to physical, material, property, but a God-given property in his rights themselves. And the shortcoming in grasping this fundamental fact is where trustees in voluntary socialism fall short of their own bull pucky.

    To repeat: Man possesses a God-given right to the property of his rights beyond his right to physical, material things.

    No means exists in the voluntary socialist's form of society which would protect this specific right of the Individual. The right of The One to the property of his Individual, God-given rights as an Indivisible whole.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-20-2017 at 03:33 PM.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Let me ask you this: What would happen in the hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society if there were no private defense agencies?
    Why spend time on a stupid hypothetical? Might as well ask, "What would happen if alien missionaries from the planet Zurgtopia landed in your backyard and tried to convert you to the faith of Buddishaon-Theta, the One True God?"

    I'm not interested in fantasy here. Or sci-fi.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Why spend time on a stupid hypothetical? Might as well ask, "What would happen if alien missionaries from the planet Zurgtopia landed in your backyard and tried to convert you to the faith of Buddishaon-Theta, the One True God?"

    I'm not interested in fantasy here. Or sci-fi.
    I explained the purpose of the question above, if you're interested in responding to that.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Well, I disagree, Pierz. In fact, the only real clarity here seems to be that it's you who does not understand. And that's okay. We're here to learn, right?

    I'll explain it for you with a mixture of my own words and a few references from a very good book on the topic specifically.

    Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because they are given by his Creator. More clearly, Man's rights are unalienable based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. In other words, Pierz, Liberty does not exist in a secular vacuum. Just as Man alone cannot originate life, man alone cannot obtain Liberty without Divine sanction. Divine saction is Liberty's primary foundation for moral code. This primary foundation for moral code is what endows you with your right to claim its benefits. You see?

    Yeah, I see that you need to read more works about Liberty. There is a reason they're called Natural Rights. That is because they exist naturally, totally absent of the existence or non-existence of God. Even John Locke, himself quite a religious man, recognized this truth. Reason, he said, not revelation, is how we derive the rights of man. It is by nature of our reason, our sentience, our humanity, that all rights are recognized. You need no God to recognize that you own your life, that you own your body, and that you own the fruits of your labor-your property. These are obvious. You own your life, not anyone else because no one else can become you and live as you. Only you can, therefore your life is yours. If no one else can own your life then they surely cannot own how you live your life, meaning you have the right to determine how you live. This is freedom/liberty. Because you own your life and can decide what to do with it, you produce things using your life. This is property. And as no one has a right to take your life or liberty they have no right to take what the product of your life and liberty- aka your property. Likewise your body is your own for the same reason your life is your own. No one can enter into your body and seize control of it. Therefore they cannot claim it. It belongs to the one whose life is housed in it and who commands it, you. You have your rights exactly because they are biologically natural -hence Natural Laws- entirely distinct from the existence of any Divinity.

    Indeed, trying to establish the validity of Liberty upon religion will only damn Liberty as religion is a subject that people will never agree upon. If your method of delivering the ideals of liberty is constrained by religion then there are billions who will never accept Liberty because they will never accept your religion.

    I haven't responded to anything else you said because that is a waste of time. It all precedes from the same errors- conflation of moral and human rights and totally misunderstanding what Natural Rights are.

    It is funny though that you would accuse me of globalism when only one of us it promoting a violent, all-powerful government which would be able to impost its will on billions of people against their will and without their consent. And that is you. I am doing the exact opposite, promoting a system that if followed would prevent any such global power from even existing. That you would accuse me of globalism just demonstrates how ignorant of Anarchy you are. It also suggests that you are ignorant of what makes globalism so dangerous- the possibility of the Global State. No one frets, "Oh, no! Global Anarchy will prevent any world power from existing and therefore allow a non-existent entity to take away my liberty!" Rather people fret, "The Global State will dominate the world and crash everyone under its monopoly of violence until we all lose our liberties!" Minarchy is the foundation of totalitarianism and totalitarianism is the foundation of globalism. Anarchy is currently the only idea proposed that actually counters the development of globalism.
    Last edited by PierzStyx; 09-20-2017 at 04:22 PM.

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I explained the purpose of the question above, if you're interested in responding to that.
    The purpose of your question is to propose a fantasy situation as real and possible as the one I did and then assert the relevance of minarchy based on a problem that can only occur in fantasy. Might as well ask, "What would happen in Anarchy if an evil High Dragon attack the village with magical flaming breath that converted everything around it into salt?"

    This is illustrative of my point though. Minarchy is only logical in a utopian fantasy.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Yeah, I see that you need to read more works about Liberty. There is a reason they're called Natural Rights. That is because they exist naturally, totally absent of the existence or non-existence of God. Even John Locke, himself quite a religious man, recognized this truth. Reason, he said, not revelation, is how we derive the rights of man. It is by nature of our reason, our sentience, our humanity, that all rights are recognized. You need no God to recognize that you own your life, that you own your body, and that you own the fruits of your labor-your property. These are obvious. You own your life, not anyone else because no one else can become you and live as you. Only you can, therefore your life is yours. If no one else can own your life then they surely cannot own how you live your life, meaning you have the right to determine how you live. This is freedom/liberty. Because you own your life and can decide what to do with it, you produce things using your life. This is property. And as no one has a right to take your life or liberty they have no right to take what the product of your life and liberty- aka your property. Likewise your body is your own for the same reason your life is your own. No one can enter into your body and seize control of it. Therefore they cannot claim it. It belongs to the one whose life is housed in it and who commands it, you. You have your rights exactly because they are biologically natural -hence Natural Laws- entirely distinct from the existence of any Divinity.

    Indeed, trying to establish the validity of Liberty upon religion will only damn Liberty as religion is a subject that people will never agree upon. If your method of delivering the ideals of liberty is constrained by religion then there are billions who will never accept Liberty because they will never accept your religion.

    I haven't responded to anything else you said because that is a waste of time. It all precedes from the same errors- conflation of moral and human rights and totally misunderstanding what Natural Rights are.

    It is funny though that you would accuse me of globalism when only one of us it promoting a violent, all-powerful government which would be able to impost its will on billions of people against their will and without their consent. And that is you. I am doing the exact opposite, promoting a system that if followed would prevent any such global power from even existing. That you would accuse me of globalism just demonstrates how ignorant of Anarchy you are. It also suggests that you are ignorant of what makes globalism so dangerous- the possibility of the Global State. No one frets, "Oh, no! Global Anarchy will prevent any world power from existing and therefore allow a non-existent entity to take away my liberty!" Rather people fret, "The Global State will dominate the world and crash everyone under its monopoly of violence until we all lose our liberties!" Minarchy is the foundation of totalitarianism and totalitarianism is the foundation of globalism. Anarchy is currently the only idea proposed that actually counters the development of globalism.
    Your Anarchism is yet another example of your heresy:

    Doctrine and Covenants

    Section 134

    A declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835. Many Saints gathered together to consider the proposed contents of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. At that time, this declaration was given the following preamble: “That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present, at the close of this volume, our opinion concerning the same.”
    1–4, Governments should preserve freedom of conscience and worship; 5–8, All men should uphold their governments and owe respect and deference to the law; 9–10, Religious societies should not exercise civil powers; 11–12, Men are justified in defending themselves and their property.
    1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
    2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
    3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.
    4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
    5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.
    6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.
    7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.
    8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.
    9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
    10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.
    11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

    https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-te...c/134?lang=eng

    The D&C is scripture you know.

    This also kills your anti-self defense nonsense as well
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Yeah, I see that you need to read more works about Liberty. There is a reason they're called Natural Rights. That is because they exist naturally, totally absent of the existence or non-existence of God.
    They exist naturally because you are of Divine Origin. The Creator's Law dictates that your rights are Natural. That's why your rights are Natural Rights. Man did not create himself. It's a losing game, Pierz. You cannot win. Although, it is admirable that you do try.


    Even John Locke, himself quite a religious man, recognized this truth. Reason, he said, not revelation, is how we derive the rights of man. It is by nature of our reason, our sentience, our humanity, that all rights are recognized. You need no God to recognize that you own your life, that you own your body, and that you own the fruits of your labor-your property. These are obvious. You own your life, not anyone else because no one else can become you and live as you. Only you can, therefore your life is yours. If no one else can own your life then they surely cannot own how you live your life, meaning you have the right to determine how you live. This is freedom/liberty. Because you own your life and can decide what to do with it, you produce things using your life. This is property. And as no one has a right to take your life or liberty they have no right to take what the product of your life and liberty- aka your property. Likewise your body is your own for the same reason your life is your own. No one can enter into your body and seize control of it. Therefore they cannot claim it. It belongs to the one whose life is housed in it and who commands it, you. You have your rights exactly because they are biologically natural -hence Natural Laws- entirely distinct from the existence of any Divinity.
    Locke openly professed that rights could be defined by the State, too. And he was openly fine with it. Did you know that, Pierz?

    Indeed, trying to establish the validity of Liberty upon religion will only damn Liberty as religion is a subject that people will never agree upon. If your method of delivering the ideals of liberty is constrained by religion then there are billions who will never accept Liberty because they will never accept your religion.
    Because Man is of Divine origin and religious in nature, he is of supreme value and importance compared with things material. That's my view on it. We can disagree.

    I haven't responded to anything else you said because that is a waste of time. It all precedes from the same errors- conflation of moral and human rights and totally misunderstanding what Natural Rights are.
    Well. Respectfully, Pierz, I didn't really write it for your benefit. I write what I write across the entirety of this board for the specific benefit of casual passers-by who would otherwise be misguided absent public refutation of some of the various, half-thought out, isms which are sometimes promoted under the very big tent that we have here. And that's the gosh honest truth of the matter.


    It is funny though that you would accuse me of globalism when only one of us it promoting a violent, all-powerful government which would be able to impost its will on billions of people against their will and without their consent. And that is you. I am doing the exact opposite, promoting a system that if followed would prevent any such global power from even existing. That you would accuse me of globalism just demonstrates how ignorant of Anarchy you are. It also suggests that you are ignorant of what makes globalism so dangerous- the possibility of the Global State. No one frets, "Oh, no! Global Anarchy will prevent any world power from existing and therefore allow a non-existent entity to take away my liberty!" Rather people fret, "The Global State will dominate the world and crash everyone under its monopoly of violence until we all lose our liberties!" Minarchy is the foundation of totalitarianism and totalitarianism is the foundation of globalism. Anarchy is currently the only idea proposed that actually counters the development of globalism.
    Well, no, I'm a small government kind of guy, Pierz. I'm not anti-government, though. I believe that Man organizes government to be his tools. As did the founders, to be clear.

    Now, you're absolutely free to practice voluntary socialism. Libertarianism permits for it. All I'm saying is that we should be allowed to opt out. I've tried to explain why that should be the rule.

    Really, I don't even disagree with anarchy so long as you're a libertarian and have rejected the use of force. Have at it. Like I said, though, I want to be able to opt out.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-20-2017 at 06:11 PM.

  26. #82
    I think it likely more valuable and beneficial, more congruent with Liberty-Responsibility as an Indivisible whole to recognize the validity of Mises' wisdom over that of Rothbard, Locke and Hoppe. Although all were insightful and offered something germane to the topic.

    And on that note, I'm gonna add to my sigline while I'm thinking of it. And it's one to grow on, for sure. Thought through all the way, it's actually pertinent to your cause, Pierz. It really is. It's the latter part that causes the conundrum. It's the latter part which invites a State-like presence into any culture or voluntary society.

    I'm done with the thread. As was said, people are free to practice voluntary socialism. Libertarianism permits for it so long as it's absent the use of force whether it be force by any written rule or force by sword.

    Good luck with it.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-20-2017 at 05:22 PM.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    The purpose of your question is to propose a fantasy situation as real and possible as the one I did and then assert the relevance of minarchy based on a problem that can only occur in fantasy. Might as well ask, "What would happen in Anarchy if an evil High Dragon attack the village with magical flaming breath that converted everything around it into salt?"

    This is illustrative of my point though. Minarchy is only logical in a utopian fantasy.
    okie dokie

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    This is absolute gibberish. A "right" has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.
    Where are you getting your definitions of "gibberish" "right," and "moral"?
    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

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Question for any of the ancaps reading this:

    Why does the state force people to pay taxes, rather than attempt to sell its services on the market?
    I'd say 'tradition', nowadays. But at its root the only explainable reason in my mind is that the services they are offering aren't desired by market participants.

  30. #86
    This $#@!ing thread needs Thorazine.

    "The Patriarch"

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    I'd say 'tradition', nowadays. But at its root the only explainable reason in my mind is that the services they are offering aren't desired by market participants.
    Indeed. In other words, selling security services is less profitable than using those security services to extort money.

    Now, why wouldn't a private defense agency in Ancapia reach the same conclusion?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. Peter Thiel at RNC: ‘Fake culture wars’ distract from broken economy
    By jct74 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-23-2016, 12:35 PM
  2. Replies: 73
    Last Post: 02-27-2012, 02:38 AM
  3. Culture wars!: Dutch to Abandon Multiculturalism
    By Agorism in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-25-2011, 09:13 PM
  4. Culture Wars vs. Censorship: What's a Social Network to Do?
    By BlackTerrel in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 02:04 PM
  5. Glen Beck wars, Palin wars, Anarchy wars
    By klamath in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-27-2009, 05:54 PM

Posting Permissions

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