Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Harpy Eagle]

When you say “the power” do you mean the physical ability, or the moral right?

Let's start with the moral right and go from there, we can move the former later.

Does a parent have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience among their children?

Does you boss have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience at your place of employment?

 

[Oddball]

OK. When you come up with a solution, let me know

The point is that the solutions will come if the problem is real and pressing enough...That's how markets work...The other point being that you're acting exactly like a leftist moonbat, in that you want results that are totally spelled out and guaranteed before you'll even consider anything outside of that which is clearly not working.

 

[Oddball]

 

[kaz]

OK. When you come up with a solution, let me know

The point is that the solutions will come if the problem is real and pressing enough...That's how markets work...The other point being that you're acting exactly like a leftist moonbat, in that you want results that are totally spelled out and guaranteed before you'll even consider anything outside of that which is clearly not working.

The whole point with "markets" is that you have choices. You can buy a computer from any number of vendors. You can buy a pair of shoes from any number of sources.

You can have only one property line. You and your neighbor can't have different lines

 

[Oddball]

The whole point with "markets" is that you have choices. You can buy a computer from any number of vendors. You can buy a pair of shoes from any number of sources.

You can have only one property line. You and your neighbor can't have different lines

Yeah...And free people operating in a marketplace of volition can't find a way to resolve this challenge because.....?

 

[Contumacious]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I am a libertarian/conservative. If you want to do something to yourself , more power to you, just make sure it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If you want to do drugs, go for it, don't come to me later demanding I need to provide for your addiction. If you want to poke another mans ass, with your penis, that is your choice, don't tell me I have to accept you as normal, just keep it to yourself. If you want to be a victim of liberalism and remain poor, that is your fault, so don't DEMAND the government to punish me for my success. The government is supposed to be there, to protect US citizens from other people who want to do bad things to US. That is their role, not to be nannies of the state and supply morons with stuff that keeps them alive.

Prior to 1914 ALL DRUGS were legal. Prior to that time there was not "Opioid Crisis" The latter was MANUFACTURED by the federal government pursuant to the Harrison Narcotic Act which was enacted because of RELIGIOUS and RACIST reasons.


.

 

[Contumacious]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Interesting. How would you define your position (either by name, or description)?

I support pro liberty and freedom policies.
I support the federal govts power that was given to them by our Constitution. Nothing more.

So your objection to the vote in this thread is that I've indicated the Libertarian party, which you do not believe reflect your constitutional libertarian views?

EDIT: I've added another poll choice, as my intent includes those who share your position.

I've no objection. I voted for Johnson Weld in 16, and I'd vote L in the poll, but as I understood it, Johnson Weld faced some puchback from libertarians on things such as no discrimination on GLBT, and possibly govt spending on infrastructure.
Gary Johnson on 11 key issues: Where does Libertarian presidential candidate stand?

However, I'd classify myself as a socially non-interventionist, fiscal conservative and following the Reagan doctrine on using the military.

Gary Johnson wasn't a Libertarian.


.


.

 

[kaz]

The whole point with "markets" is that you have choices. You can buy a computer from any number of vendors. You can buy a pair of shoes from any number of sources.

You can have only one property line. You and your neighbor can't have different lines

Yeah...And free people operating in a marketplace of volition can't find a way to resolve this challenge because.....?

Because it's not how capitalism works. The whole point is to get the best deal. Security companies aren't going to make the most money by promising you the most fair line, they are going to make money by promising you the most for your money, a line that is in your favor.

Seriously, do you know ANYTHING about capitalism? You thought capitalism was a group hug where we divvy everything up as fairly as possible? That's actually the claim of socialism, not capitalism

 

[Contumacious]

No regieme change unless commies are involved though

Why? We defeated the largest communist country ever to exist without firing a single shot at them.

Yo Vern, irrelevant.


Comrade Bernard Sanders won 1865 delegates

.

 

[kaz]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Interesting. How would you define your position (either by name, or description)?

I support pro liberty and freedom policies.
I support the federal govts power that was given to them by our Constitution. Nothing more.

So your objection to the vote in this thread is that I've indicated the Libertarian party, which you do not believe reflect your constitutional libertarian views?

EDIT: I've added another poll choice, as my intent includes those who share your position.

I've no objection. I voted for Johnson Weld in 16, and I'd vote L in the poll, but as I understood it, Johnson Weld faced some puchback from libertarians on things such as no discrimination on GLBT, and possibly govt spending on infrastructure.
Gary Johnson on 11 key issues: Where does Libertarian presidential candidate stand?

However, I'd classify myself as a socially non-interventionist, fiscal conservative and following the Reagan doctrine on using the military.

Gary Johnson wasn't a Libertarian.


.


.

Obviously he was since he was the party's candidate. I think you mean he wasn't a libertarian. That's true, he wasn't

 

[Contumacious]

If you're a classical Liberal as I am

Sorry, i do not subscribe to, nor am I bound by, your purity test. One can respect and practice classical liberalism in degrees. One can apply it to situations, and yet still believe we should have a functioning government that collects taxes and, at times, is collectivist.It would not be hard for me to find someone whose purity test YOU would fail, so I don't see much value in your purity test.

You are not a communist

You are a fascist

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."

,

 

[Brian Blackwell]

When you say “the power” do you mean the physical ability, or the moral right?

Let's start with the moral right and go from there, we can move the former later.

Does a parent have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience among their children?

Does you boss have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience at your place of employment?

The parent accepts the responsibility for protecting the child from their own lack of mature judgement. This is like asking “do I have the right to push a drunk guy off the train tracks when the train is coming”. It’s a judgement call; you are put in a position to have to guess at what the person would want, and guessing they want to be saved from a clear and present danger is reasonable enough. The decision is rooted in defense of that individual, not in violating their right to free movement by pushing them; not in having authority to enforce obeying your will. A grey area, but the core principle is defense of their rights, not exercising your own perceived authority.

So no, the parent does not have authority, nor does the train hero. They are simply trying to defend the self-authority of the other person, as to sit back and watch them kill themselves would be contrary to what they would presumably choose, and here’s the key - they are not in a position to make a rational decision decision about it for themselves at that time.

Your boss does not have authority over YOU, he has “authority” (property rights) over his property - the business. I can tell you “don’t sit on my couch” but that is not authority over you personally. It’s rooted in my right to decide how my property is used.

 

[Contumacious]

Interesting. How would you define your position (either by name, or description)?

I support pro liberty and freedom policies.
I support the federal govts power that was given to them by our Constitution. Nothing more.

So your objection to the vote in this thread is that I've indicated the Libertarian party, which you do not believe reflect your constitutional libertarian views?

EDIT: I've added another poll choice, as my intent includes those who share your position.

I've no objection. I voted for Johnson Weld in 16, and I'd vote L in the poll, but as I understood it, Johnson Weld faced some puchback from libertarians on things such as no discrimination on GLBT, and possibly govt spending on infrastructure.
Gary Johnson on 11 key issues: Where does Libertarian presidential candidate stand?

However, I'd classify myself as a socially non-interventionist, fiscal conservative and following the Reagan doctrine on using the military.

Gary Johnson wasn't a Libertarian.


.


.

Obviously he was since he was the party's candidate. I think you mean he wasn't a libertarian. That's true, he wasn't

He was a LINO


.

 

[kaz]

I support pro liberty and freedom policies.
I support the federal govts power that was given to them by our Constitution. Nothing more.

So your objection to the vote in this thread is that I've indicated the Libertarian party, which you do not believe reflect your constitutional libertarian views?

EDIT: I've added another poll choice, as my intent includes those who share your position.

I've no objection. I voted for Johnson Weld in 16, and I'd vote L in the poll, but as I understood it, Johnson Weld faced some puchback from libertarians on things such as no discrimination on GLBT, and possibly govt spending on infrastructure.
Gary Johnson on 11 key issues: Where does Libertarian presidential candidate stand?

However, I'd classify myself as a socially non-interventionist, fiscal conservative and following the Reagan doctrine on using the military.

Gary Johnson wasn't a Libertarian.


.


.

Obviously he was since he was the party's candidate. I think you mean he wasn't a libertarian. That's true, he wasn't

He was a LINO


.

Yes, he is. I don't know what he believes. I'm not sure he does either. Whenever he talks he looks like he's trying to figure out what he's supposed to believe

 

[Contumacious]

I'm libertarian.

I'm not sure why anyone would believe that anarchists are liberty-minded. Anarchy is more restrictive than even the most heavy-handed dictatorship. You'd have to always stay home just to defend your property.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/ryan-mcmaken/real-anarchists/
Who Are the Real Anarchists?

"Few political ideologies are as misunderstood as anarchism. Confusion is so widespread, in fact, that those ignorant of this intellectual tradition often use the word “anarchism” as a synonym for “chaos.” Some of the confusion may arise from the fact that anarchism is today often solely associated with the anti-private-property anarchists of the nineteenth century, such as the followers of Mikhail Bakunin.

In the libertarian tradition, however, the anarchist society is merely the society in which individuals are not governed by a state built on monopolized violence and coercion, but instead govern themselves through organizations into which they have entered voluntarily. Among such institutions can certainly be found churches, schools, families, professional associations, markets, and tribes."


.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When you say “the power” do you mean the physical ability, or the moral right?

Let's start with the moral right and go from there, we can move the former later.

Does a parent have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience among their children?

Does you boss have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience at your place of employment?

The parent accepts the responsibility for protecting the child from their own lack of mature judgement. This is like asking “do I have the right to push a drunk guy off the train tracks when the train is coming”. It’s a judgement call; you are put in a position to have to guess at what the person would want, and guessing they want to be saved from a clear and present danger is reasonable enough. The decision is rooted in defense of that individual, not in violating their right to free movement by pushing them; not in having authority to enforce obeying your will. A grey area, but the core principle is defense of their rights, not exercising your own perceived authority.

So no, the parent does not have authority, nor does the train hero. They are simply trying to defend the self-authority of the other person, as to sit back and watch them kill themselves would be contrary to what they would presumably choose, and here’s the key - they are not in a position to make a rational decision decision about it for themselves at that time.

Your boss does not have authority over YOU, he has “authority” (property rights) over his property - the business. I can tell you “don’t sit on my couch” but that is not authority over you personally. It’s rooted in my right to decide how my property is used.

I do not think we can go any further with this conversation as we cannot even begin to agree on meaning of the key terms, thus is seems silly to go any further.

But when you tell me I do not have the authority to tell a child at the age of 6 what time to go to bed, then I cannot really go on any more.

Thank you for a wonderful conversation, it was thought provoking enough to get me to start listing to an audiobook on the subject.

 

[bripat9643]

When you say “the power” do you mean the physical ability, or the moral right?

Let's start with the moral right and go from there, we can move the former later.

Does a parent have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience among their children?

Does you boss have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience at your place of employment?

The parent accepts the responsibility for protecting the child from their own lack of mature judgement. This is like asking “do I have the right to push a drunk guy off the train tracks when the train is coming”. It’s a judgement call; you are put in a position to have to guess at what the person would want, and guessing they want to be saved from a clear and present danger is reasonable enough. The decision is rooted in defense of that individual, not in violating their right to free movement by pushing them; not in having authority to enforce obeying your will. A grey area, but the core principle is defense of their rights, not exercising your own perceived authority.

So no, the parent does not have authority, nor does the train hero. They are simply trying to defend the self-authority of the other person, as to sit back and watch them kill themselves would be contrary to what they would presumably choose, and here’s the key - they are not in a position to make a rational decision decision about it for themselves at that time.

Your boss does not have authority over YOU, he has “authority” (property rights) over his property - the business. I can tell you “don’t sit on my couch” but that is not authority over you personally. It’s rooted in my right to decide how my property is used.

I do not think we can go any further with this conversation as we cannot even begin to agree on meaning of the key terms, thus is seems silly to go any further.

But when you tell me I do not have the authority to tell a child at the age of 6 what time to go to bed, then I cannot really go on any more.

Thank you for a wonderful conversation, it was thought provoking enough to get me to start listing to an audiobook on the subject.

You're right about one thing: it's pointless to argue with you because want to ram your definitions down our throats even though it has been explained to you countless times that your definition isn't the one we use. Words have multiple definitions, but you pretend only yours is the correct one

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When you say “the power” do you mean the physical ability, or the moral right?

Let's start with the moral right and go from there, we can move the former later.

Does a parent have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience among their children?

Does you boss have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience at your place of employment?

The parent accepts the responsibility for protecting the child from their own lack of mature judgement. This is like asking “do I have the right to push a drunk guy off the train tracks when the train is coming”. It’s a judgement call; you are put in a position to have to guess at what the person would want, and guessing they want to be saved from a clear and present danger is reasonable enough. The decision is rooted in defense of that individual, not in violating their right to free movement by pushing them; not in having authority to enforce obeying your will. A grey area, but the core principle is defense of their rights, not exercising your own perceived authority.

So no, the parent does not have authority, nor does the train hero. They are simply trying to defend the self-authority of the other person, as to sit back and watch them kill themselves would be contrary to what they would presumably choose, and here’s the key - they are not in a position to make a rational decision decision about it for themselves at that time.

Your boss does not have authority over YOU, he has “authority” (property rights) over his property - the business. I can tell you “don’t sit on my couch” but that is not authority over you personally. It’s rooted in my right to decide how my property is used.

I would like to add one more thing if I do not mind. It is this game of semantics that you are forced to play that will keep your views from ever being widespread.

As soon as you tell a parent they have no authority over their child, chances are you have lost them for good no matter how you spin it around.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

When you say “the power” do you mean the physical ability, or the moral right?

Let's start with the moral right and go from there, we can move the former later.

Does a parent have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience among their children?

Does you boss have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience at your place of employment?

The parent accepts the responsibility for protecting the child from their own lack of mature judgement. This is like asking “do I have the right to push a drunk guy off the train tracks when the train is coming”. It’s a judgement call; you are put in a position to have to guess at what the person would want, and guessing they want to be saved from a clear and present danger is reasonable enough. The decision is rooted in defense of that individual, not in violating their right to free movement by pushing them; not in having authority to enforce obeying your will. A grey area, but the core principle is defense of their rights, not exercising your own perceived authority.

So no, the parent does not have authority, nor does the train hero. They are simply trying to defend the self-authority of the other person, as to sit back and watch them kill themselves would be contrary to what they would presumably choose, and here’s the key - they are not in a position to make a rational decision decision about it for themselves at that time.

Your boss does not have authority over YOU, he has “authority” (property rights) over his property - the business. I can tell you “don’t sit on my couch” but that is not authority over you personally. It’s rooted in my right to decide how my property is used.

I do not think we can go any further with this conversation as we cannot even begin to agree on meaning of the key terms, thus is seems silly to go any further.

But when you tell me I do not have the authority to tell a child at the age of 6 what time to go to bed, then I cannot really go on any more.

Thank you for a wonderful conversation, it was thought provoking enough to get me to start listing to an audiobook on the subject.

Very well then. Much obliged for your generous attention to the topic. As long as we all keep challenging assumptions and earnestly seeking truth, we’ll come out alright... here’s to hoping we don’t run out of time.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When you say “the power” do you mean the physical ability, or the moral right?

Let's start with the moral right and go from there, we can move the former later.

Does a parent have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience among their children?

Does you boss have the moral right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience at your place of employment?

The parent accepts the responsibility for protecting the child from their own lack of mature judgement. This is like asking “do I have the right to push a drunk guy off the train tracks when the train is coming”. It’s a judgement call; you are put in a position to have to guess at what the person would want, and guessing they want to be saved from a clear and present danger is reasonable enough. The decision is rooted in defense of that individual, not in violating their right to free movement by pushing them; not in having authority to enforce obeying your will. A grey area, but the core principle is defense of their rights, not exercising your own perceived authority.

So no, the parent does not have authority, nor does the train hero. They are simply trying to defend the self-authority of the other person, as to sit back and watch them kill themselves would be contrary to what they would presumably choose, and here’s the key - they are not in a position to make a rational decision decision about it for themselves at that time.

Your boss does not have authority over YOU, he has “authority” (property rights) over his property - the business. I can tell you “don’t sit on my couch” but that is not authority over you personally. It’s rooted in my right to decide how my property is used.

I do not think we can go any further with this conversation as we cannot even begin to agree on meaning of the key terms, thus is seems silly to go any further.

But when you tell me I do not have the authority to tell a child at the age of 6 what time to go to bed, then I cannot really go on any more.

Thank you for a wonderful conversation, it was thought provoking enough to get me to start listing to an audiobook on the subject.

You're right about one thing: it's pointless to argue with you because want to ram your definitions down our throats even though it has been explained to you countless times that your definition isn't the one we use. Words have multiple definitions, but you pretend only yours is the correct one

Just so you know, this is how I picture you, chasing me around trying to get my attention so I will pat you on the head..