Hello

Discussion in 'Introduce Yourself' started by Natural Citizen, Aug 8, 2016.

  1. Natural Citizen
    Offline

    Natural Citizen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,136
    Thanks Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Ratings:
    +940


    Sure. This is what I meant when I mentioned Individiual Liberty's principle support. The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself. And, again, Individuals or groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves don't prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equally doing the same. So I agree wit hyour points here.


    If I do vote, I'll write in Castle. While I disagree with some of the Constitution Party's so called plank, I like Castle because his personal positions reflect the primary moral foundation that establish the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself and are consistent with the traditional philosophy of governance of our Constitutional Republic. Individual Liberty's primary moral foundation is inseparable with its fundamental principles. They cannot be accepted or rejected piece-meal. They must be accepted as an Indivisible whole in order to make a legitimate claim to its benefit.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2016
  2. Natural Citizen
    Offline

    Natural Citizen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,136
    Thanks Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Ratings:
    +940
    Thank You for the stimulating conversation this afternoon, Pumpkin Row. I'm going to get off of here now. I was just popping in briefly. Enjoy your day.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Pumpkin Row
    Offline

    Pumpkin Row Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2016
    Messages:
    4,673
    Thanks Received:
    1,990
    Trophy Points:
    430
    Ratings:
    +6,159
    Just assuming, but since you're writing in, that must mean you have a problem with Gary Johnson. Just out of curiosity, what problem would that be, if any? I've been wondering for a while what problem people have with him, since a lot of other Conservatives have said they dislike him(And some Libertarians).
     
  4. Natural Citizen
    Offline

    Natural Citizen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,136
    Thanks Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Ratings:
    +940
    Johnson openly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal when he professed that he'd send men from the government with guns to force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals against their will. This is a rejection of Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal.

    Again, The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.To openly reject Individual Liberty's most principal supporting mechanism is to openly reject Individual Liberty fully.

    Sending men with guns from the government to force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property is a patently communist philosophy. It is a case of Government-over-Man.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Pumpkin Row
    Offline

    Pumpkin Row Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2016
    Messages:
    4,673
    Thanks Received:
    1,990
    Trophy Points:
    430
    Ratings:
    +6,159
    I hadn't actually heard him say that, but I also hadn't watched the Libertarian Town Halls or debates(If there were any). Could you elaborate on his statement so I can better understand?
     
  6. Natural Citizen
    Offline

    Natural Citizen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,136
    Thanks Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Ratings:
    +940
    Sure. When asked whether he felt that Jewish bakers (Individuals with unalienable God-Given rights) should be forced to bake wedding cakes for Nazi customers (also Individuals with unalienable God-Given rights). Stossel directed the question to Johnson, who replied “that would be my contention, yes.”

    Cake is property. And the scenario could easily take on the form of any other property. And regardless of whether one is Jewish or Nazi, at the end of the day, they're still an Individual with unalienable rights from God. Mr. Johnson just said here that he'd use the government to force an Individual to relinquish their property to another. Have you ever had a Sheriff show up to enforce something? He tends to have a gun on his hip.

    Core liberty principles:
    • Groups of individuals can self-organize and impose rules upon themselves, but should not force the same on others.
    • You have the right to own property which you can voluntarily give or trade with others as you see fit.
    • The fruits of your labor are yours alone, unless you agree otherwise.
    • You should not initiate aggression against other people.
    • You should not steal or destroy others property.
    • You have the right to defend your life, freedom and property.

    Gary Johnson's openly admitted position is contrary to these core principles. In fact, his position is aggressive toward them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2016
  7. Pumpkin Row
    Offline

    Pumpkin Row Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2016
    Messages:
    4,673
    Thanks Received:
    1,990
    Trophy Points:
    430
    Ratings:
    +6,159
    Oh, I understand now. That's pretty messed up. I believe that businesses shouldn't be forced to provide service, they should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason.
     
  8. Natural Citizen
    Offline

    Natural Citizen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,136
    Thanks Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Ratings:
    +940
    Not only businesses, but ultimately this pertains to The Individual. Again, The Individual has a right to property. This right is an indispensable and principal material support for The Individual's right to Life and Liberty itself. End of the day, a business owner is an Individual.

    The issue (and ultimately Johnson's open acknowledgment that he'd infringe on the Individual's property rights by sending men from the government with guns to force relinquishment of property...because that's what "force" means when we're talking about government force) gets watered down when we don't recognize that this is first and foremost and aggression toward The Individual's right to property and Individual Liberty itself given that the right to property is Individual Liberty's principal support.

    And it doesn't matter if it's cake here. It could be your car, it could be your house, it could be your food. It can be any property. Johnson's openly admitted position is one that reflects aggresion toward the right to property fully. Not just cake. Property is property. His openly admitted position is one that is patently contrary and aggressive toward the Individual's fundamental right to property. Again, it's a communist position and one that is a patent rejection of Individual Liberty fully given the rejection of its most fundamental principal support and means of securing.

    As well, aggression is immoral. In fact, it's anti-moral. Which, while relevant here, is another discussion entirely given that the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty are premised upon a fundamental and primary foundation for moral code and for the purpose of proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations. So we get into Natural Law there. And The Individual's moral duty/responsibilty to defend and secure his Liberty.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2016

Share This Page