The essence of collectivism is force. The essence of libertarianism is choice.

[ihopehefails]

Boiled down to its true nature, libertarianism is nothing but the infantile screams of a child decrying the idea that he can't write his own rules for himself and that others might seek to hold him to any standard.

The libertarian decries government yet still wants a police force. He demands that he be held to no laws or rules he himself does not right yet seeks to impose his rules on those who file the same objection. He cannot tell us where the roads will come from yet insists that his is the path to the future. He pretends to decry rape and murder yet despises the law and the State necessary for a police force and a just court system to ensure a peacable and just society. He demands that we become a society lacking meaningful government capable of enforcing Law yet refuses to so much as visit a nation where his vision can be seen. He claims that a man's own morality and religion guide him and that he be bound only by the laws to which he has personally agreed yet scoffs at the idea of setting foot near any such area as follows precisely that example.

Somalia is the result of the very principles the libertairan espouses as the basis for his fantasy Utopia, yet he refuses to set foot in the world he would create.

If a person can't write their own rules then who is? Other people get to decide what gets done for them which is nothing more than slavery. Why do you support slavery?

right... telling you you're not allowed to rape and murder people is slavery

Free all the prisoners, y'all- slavery is wrong! [but rape and murder are okay- they never agreed to those rules]


Manson agreed wholeheartedly with you and said the same bullshit when he was addressing the Family.

What tells people that they are not allowed to rape and murder is the person themselves because they have full say in what gets done with their property. A person can decide if they wish to engage in sexual intercourse or commit suicide by having a doctor take their life. Those are not rape or murder because it did not violate the user's say over their property which happens to be their person. Those who can't respect the property rights of others such as what gets done with your person usually do murder and rape.

Its not up to other people about what gets done with someone's property but the property owner themselves.

 

[ihopehefails]

Exactly! The choice to cooperate with someone else is made between two individuals and not society as a whole.

Come to think of it. Is their really any such thing as 'society as a whole'?

Only in the minds of dreamers.

Since we've already got IHHF pretty much rehashing Manson's ramblings on the Ranch...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjZpIhiDsXk]YouTube - Charles Manson:Eyes of a Dreamer[/ame]

and look at who you are rehashing...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTvhKZHAP8U&feature=fvsr]YouTube - Sesame Street: ABC-DEF-GHI Song[/ame]

 

[HUGGY]

A libertarian is someone that would like to have all of the hyways in his state sold off to private companies...except for the ones he uses.

 

[ihopehefails]

I'm amazed that people seem to think that the social agreement that they like is so great when it can be used for great evil. The NAZIs socially agreed that Jews had no right to live but did that make it true? According to those who think that our rights come from some kind of social agreement it does.

Where your rights 'come from', as some ethereal abstract notion, is irrelevant. Whether there are means to establish and protect your rights is what matters. Our founders made philosophical, historical, moral arguments for the rights they wanted to establish. Hitler made similar arguments AGAINST the Jews.

Might makes right, like it or not.

How civilized....

 

[ihopehefails]

The Nazis did not have a Supreme Court to enforce a bill of rights and other Constitutional protections.

Our Constitution, with its bill of rights, and its Supreme Court, is the product of a social agreement.

The same social agreement that supported slavery. When individuals decided that agreement was wrong they forced society to adapt, they did not conform to the social agreement for the common good. The social agreement you are referring to is supposed to protect the individual, not the common good. Why do people keep trying to change it without the permission of all the parties affected by it?

right... like when it was changed without the permission of the slaveowners and again without the permission for those exploiting child labour for the greater good and the welfare of blacks and children?

Slaveowners really did not have a right to a slave's property wich was their person. It was theft since the slave did not agree to the labor agreement between the him and his master. Their was no agreement other than the one made between slaveowners themselves which is kind of like what you are proposing in many ways. You believe that other people have the right to alter or make an agreement when they themselves are not in the agreement whatsoever. Its like saying that we have the right to force two people to agree to do something when one of those people did not agree with it. That is identical to what happen during slavery where the individual rights of the slave were removed because other people thought they had a right to force them into an agreement with the slave owner.

 

[boedicca]

And it's what the Obama administration is doing with Health Care - forcing someone to purchase something from a private party against his will.

 

[ihopehefails]

I'm amazed that people seem to think that the social agreement that they like is so great when it can be used for great evil. The NAZIs socially agreed that Jews had no right to live but did that make it true? According to those who think that our rights come from some kind of social agreement it does.

right.. because the Jews totally agreed to that system

Social Contract is not an ideology. It's not a proposal. It's not a solution or a policy. It's a simple fact. It is an explanation of how humans interact and how their social systems, both formal and informal, take shape, from the underlying rules that govern their interaction to the emergence of government and laws to the rise and fall of States. Recognizing the manner in which people interact is not supporting any given system that might arise from such interactions any more than explaining how the laws of thermodynamics govern the manner in which heat spreads is advocating the lighting of a candle or a bonfire or a church or any other given flame.

Oh, and one more thing, my retarded friend:

They were the non-involved third party who didn't enter into the agreement yet were forced to sign. That did not sound like voluntary cooperation to me.

I don't have a problem with the 'social agreement' but think it should be narrowed down to the individuals who are actually a part of it and not the entire collective.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

JB doesn't think what he says should be compared to Hitler, as he proceeds to compare what other people say to Charles Manson.

 

[JBeukema]

So, I guess my #1 solution would be to not look to people who could screw up a one-car parade to solve any of my problems.

So, if you're not going to solve your own problems, who do you expect to do so for you?

 

[JBeukema]

If a person can't write their own rules then who is? Other people get to decide what gets done for them which is nothing more than slavery. Why do you support slavery?

right... telling you you're not allowed to rape and murder people is slavery

Free all the prisoners, y'all- slavery is wrong! [but rape and murder are okay- they never agreed to those rules]


Manson agreed wholeheartedly with you and said the same bullshit when he was addressing the Family.

What tells people that they are not allowed to rape and murder is the person themselves because they have full say in what gets done with their property. A person can decide if they wish to engage in sexual intercourse or commit suicide by having a doctor take their life. Those are not rape or murder because it did not violate the user's say over their property which happens to be their person. Those who can't respect the property rights of others such as what gets done with your person usually do murder and rape.

Its not up to other people about what gets done with someone's property but the property owner themselves.

Ownership is a social concept that only holds any meaning when describing one's recognized social rights to possess or use something in relation to other actors in a system. The libertarian 'system' is one of non-cooperation and non-governance [after all, the decry all things collective as evil] and cannot be built upon such a foundation

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When someone starts talking about the greater good they are not talking about cooperation.

Really?

So federalism, submission to a group we agree shall enforce the laws, and passing new taxes to pay for shared infrastructure... non of that is social cooperation? Or it's all just plain evil?

When you make moronic absolute statements, you look like an absolute moron.

There is a difference between mutual cooperation and someone calling for something in the name of the greater good. The greater good implies that someone has to settle for a lesser good so that most people are better off.

Slavery was for the greater good,

Such a moronic assertion doesn't even warrant serious discussion

Then you entirely miss my point. People use the term greater good to justify many things, and slavery is only one of them. You should take the time to read some of those pro slavery documents Paperview has posted links to and see just how evil that concept really is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

right... like when it was changed without the permission of the slaveowners and again without the permission for those exploiting child labour for the greater good and the welfare of blacks and children?

That agreement was invalid because it was not supported by everyone who was subject to it. By trying to argue against my point you are actually validating it.

Are you really this dense, or do you just play it on the internet?

 

[JBeukema]

You believe that other people have the right to alter or make an agreement when they themselves are not in the agreement whatsoever.

Like someone in DC passing a law that nullifies the agreement between a child labourer, his father, and and the owner of a coal miner? or when they passed laws infringing on the agreement between that owner and the boy's father, which mandated that the owner use sheet metal to cover the exposed gears so the man didn't lose his other hand? Or when the government tells two companies that they're not allowed to be making agreements about how much to sell their products for?

Its like saying that we have the right to force two people to agree to do something when one of those people did not agree with it.

In some cases, we do. Like when we tell one nation or country to stop invading another or we don't give a criminal a choice as to whether a bunch of third parties are going to keep him locked away because of something he did to someone none of them know.

That is identical to what happen during slavery

 

[JBeukema]

JB doesn't think what he says should be compared to Hitler, as he proceeds to compare what other people say to Charles Manson.

It's not a comparison. Manson said the exact same thing on the Ranch. There's a video of it floating about.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

JB doesn't think what he says should be compared to Hitler, as he proceeds to compare what other people say to Charles Manson.

It's not a comparison. Manson said the exact same thing on the Ranch. There's a video of it floating about.

You mean the ranch where he and his collective lived?

 

[Vast LWC]

Choice constrained is force. Taking away my choices before I get a chance to make them is no different than telling me what to do.

Queue Bfgrn to come in and tell you that laws against murder restrain your choice too, as if that's somehow a valid point in context.

So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?

That is such a right-wing point of view.

The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.

So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.

 

[Vast LWC]

And it's what the Obama administration is doing with Health Care - forcing someone to purchase something from a private party against his will.

That's not "collectivism". If anything that's "Cartel-ism", if that's even a word.

But it's not even that.

It's protecting the majority of the public from having to pay for insurance dead-beats when they try to make other people pay for their hospital stays.

There are of course 2 ways to go about that. We could make it so hospitals have the legal ability to throw those people out on their ass when they show up at a hospital and let them die. Not a very compassionate choice, that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not "collectivism". If anything that's "Cartel-ism", if that's even a word.

But it's not even that.

It's protecting the majority of the public from having to pay for insurance dead-beats when they try to make other people pay for their hospital stays.

There are of course 2 ways to go about that. We could make it so hospitals have the legal ability to throw those people out on their ass when they show up at a hospital and let them die. Not a very compassionate choice, that.

Nice try, but the law doesn't even cover that. Massachusetts has actually created a new form of dead beat with their individual mandate. People now wait until they need medical care, go out and purchase insurance, have the care they need paid for, then drop the insurance. since everyone is touting how Obamacare is just like Romneycare, how is it going to eliminate dead beats?

 

[Vast LWC]

Nice try, but the law doesn't even cover that. Massachusetts has actually created a new form of dead beat with their individual mandate. People now wait until they need medical care, go out and purchase insurance, have the care they need paid for, then drop the insurance. since everyone is touting how Obamacare is just like Romneycare, how is it going to eliminate dead beats?

Because the new law applies fines to dead-beats. Thus they pay one way or another, with the same end result.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because the new law applies fines to dead-beats. Thus they pay one way or another, with the same end result.

So does Romneycare. Unfortunately, the fines do not outweigh the benefits of ignoring them. If it is going to cost me $3,000.00 a year to get insurance (an absurdly low number), and only cost me $750.00 a year not to get it, which one do you think most people are going to choose?