Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, you agree that we either we live under the law of conquest for we live under the law of property rights? There's no logical alternative?Slavery and the violent removal of native Americans Booty. Those are historical facts. I don't have to frame them at all. In fact I haven't, I've only listed them as things that happened forcefully at gunpoint per your request.
I understand natural rights as either figments of your imagination or you simply don't understand what those words mean. What exactly is natural about the legal fictions you call Rights?You don't even understand natural rights. You keep conflating.
Why don't you just...pass the dutchie pon de left hand side...
Libertarians always go too far and beyond reasonableMost people see Libertarianism as a fringe ideology. Liberals see it as laissez-fair Capitalism gone amok. Conservatives see it as hedonistic and just one step away from godless anarchy.
But, what are the principles of Libertarianism that people seem to object to:
Individualism: Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. In principle, there are no groups that are responsible for actions or who have needs or rights beyond those of the individual. Libertarianism eschews identity politics.
Individual rights: Each individual has a right to be secure in their life, their liberty, and their property. These rights are granted by nature, not by government and the burden of explanation lies with anyone who proposed to interfere with those right.
Spontaneous Order: A certain amount of order in society if necessary for individuals to survive and prosper. Without order, anarchy leads to a state where the powerful will oppress the weak. However, order doesn’t have to be imposed from a central authority. Language, law, money, and markets all developed spontaneously, without the need for a central authority. Individual humans do not need to be led to achieve social cohesion. Social cohesion will assert when individuals are free to choose.
Rule of Law: As I stated before, Libertarians aren’t anarchists. In a Libertarian society, a person is free to pursue their own lives SO LONG as they respect the equal rights of others. Laws need to respect that principle, not be either arbitrary in nature, or used to create social conditioning.
Limited Government: To quote Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Limiting both the size and scope of government into any area that doesn’t protect the rights of ALL citizens to liberty and for individuals to be secure in their life, their liberty, or their property should be un-Constitutional.
Free Markets: The most effective way to eliminate corruption in the marketplace is to remove the power that a government has to regulate that market. “When buying and selling are legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold will be legislators”. Preventing an individual from pursuing a business is just as evil as using a taxpayer’s money to shore up a failing business. Wealth can be spontaneously created by giving free reign to innovation and production. Only government can limit the creation of that wealth or use their power to divert that wealth towards others that didn’t participate in its production, but only were able to ingratiate themselves with the government.
Production is a Virtue: People who produce need to be secure to keep the fruits of their labor. No on has a right to the production of others. Thomas Paine wrote, “There are two distinct classes of men in the nation, those who pay taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes.” And Jefferson wrote, “We have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
Harmony of Interests: In a free society, the interests of most people don’t conflict. People will strive to achieve what they cannot obtain by other means. When we all seek to prosper by our own means, we mutually prosper. Adam Smith writes, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”
Peace: War does nothing to enhance the rights of the individual. War requires the sacrifice of the individual to enhance the interests of The State. Foreign interventionism, Imperialism by Force, or the idea of imposing a peace beyond our borders doesn’t belong in a Libertarian society.
So, which of those principles do people find so offensive? Which ones wouldn’t be beneficial to our society as a whole, and to the individuals who make up our society?
So, you agree that we either we live under the law of conquest for we live under the law of property rights? There's no logical alternative?
I already explained it to you. So far, no response.I understand natural rights as either figments of your imagination or you simply don't understand what those words mean. What exactly is natural about the legal fictions you call Rights?
I've responded to every one of your posts on the matter. Your predictions of doom and gloom without property rights is not an explanation of what natural rights are it's just demagoguery.I already explained it to you. So far, no response.
So, purely the law of conquest?
No Booty, I don't agree to that. In fact I pointed out to you earlier that property rights advocates can be colonizers and slavers themselves.
Wrong.I've responded to every one of your posts on the matter. Your predictions of doom and gloom without property rights is not an explanation of what natural rights are it's just demagoguery.
So, purely law of conquest what? Express a complete thought Booty.So, purely the law of conquest?
Who are you Shadow boxing there Booty? You certainly aren't responding to my comments. I never said anything at all about me being entitled to take anything from you by force.Anything I work for and obtain, you're entitled to it if you can take it from me by force?
The dishonesty is clear in your reply and by the fact that nothing of mine you quote contains me saying it's okay to take what you've worked for by force.Damn. An honest commie. Who would have thought?
Right. So you mean the post where you said natural rights are just the rules society has to follow in order to function and prosper? I responded to that as well. I asked you what these rules are and where do they come from?Wrong.
See. You have no foresight. You cannot see the logical conclusion of your apparent philosophy (you have never really come out and said it, all you do is fucking troll, so I am left to assume).So, purely law of conquest what? Express a complete thought Booty.
Who are you Shadow boxing there Booty? You certainly aren't responding to my comments. I never said anything at all about me being entitled to take anything from you by force.
The dishonesty is clear in your reply and by the fact that nothing of mine you quote contains me saying it's okay to take what you've worked for by force.
Most people see Libertarianism as a fringe ideology. Liberals see it as laissez-fair Capitalism gone amok. Conservatives see it as hedonistic and just one step away from godless anarchy.
But, what are the principles of Libertarianism that people seem to object to:
Individualism: Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. In principle, there are no groups that are responsible for actions or who have needs or rights beyond those of the individual. Libertarianism eschews identity politics.
Individual rights: Each individual has a right to be secure in their life, their liberty, and their property. These rights are granted by nature, not by government and the burden of explanation lies with anyone who proposed to interfere with those right.
Spontaneous Order: A certain amount of order in society if necessary for individuals to survive and prosper. Without order, anarchy leads to a state where the powerful will oppress the weak. However, order doesn’t have to be imposed from a central authority. Language, law, money, and markets all developed spontaneously, without the need for a central authority. Individual humans do not need to be led to achieve social cohesion. Social cohesion will assert when individuals are free to choose.
Rule of Law: As I stated before, Libertarians aren’t anarchists. In a Libertarian society, a person is free to pursue their own lives SO LONG as they respect the equal rights of others. Laws need to respect that principle, not be either arbitrary in nature, or used to create social conditioning.
Limited Government: To quote Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Limiting both the size and scope of government into any area that doesn’t protect the rights of ALL citizens to liberty and for individuals to be secure in their life, their liberty, or their property should be un-Constitutional.
Free Markets: The most effective way to eliminate corruption in the marketplace is to remove the power that a government has to regulate that market. “When buying and selling are legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold will be legislators”. Preventing an individual from pursuing a business is just as evil as using a taxpayer’s money to shore up a failing business. Wealth can be spontaneously created by giving free reign to innovation and production. Only government can limit the creation of that wealth or use their power to divert that wealth towards others that didn’t participate in its production, but only were able to ingratiate themselves with the government.
Production is a Virtue: People who produce need to be secure to keep the fruits of their labor. No on has a right to the production of others. Thomas Paine wrote, “There are two distinct classes of men in the nation, those who pay taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes.” And Jefferson wrote, “We have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
Harmony of Interests: In a free society, the interests of most people don’t conflict. People will strive to achieve what they cannot obtain by other means. When we all seek to prosper by our own means, we mutually prosper. Adam Smith writes, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”
Peace: War does nothing to enhance the rights of the individual. War requires the sacrifice of the individual to enhance the interests of The State. Foreign interventionism, Imperialism by Force, or the idea of imposing a peace beyond our borders doesn’t belong in a Libertarian society.
So, which of those principles do people find so offensive? Which ones wouldn’t be beneficial to our society as a whole, and to the individuals who make up our society?
I'll answer.Right. So you mean the post where you said natural rights are just the rules society has to follow in order to function and prosper? I responded to that as well. I asked you what these rules are and where do they come from?
You're just expressing the limits of your own imagination Booty. As I said earlier people can choose to work together.See. You have no foresight. You cannot see the logical conclusion of your apparent philosophy (you have never really come out and said it, all you do is fucking troll, so I am left to assume).
Why are you lashing out in anger, like a child, over a simple conversation?Do we have property rights or not? I don't get a RAT FUCK about where YOU think those rights are derived, LET'S JUST START WITH WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE THEM.
Of course you have rights Booty, but they aren't natural, they're conditional. In some countries they are conditional to the whims of dictators, in this country they're conditional to our laws and Constitution which are subject to change.
Which means they aren't inherent.I'll answer.
Those rules came about from people learning what resolves conflict and keeps the peace (truce vs. violence).
The question is, what makes it your stuff? There were people here before you and this country was built on the conquest of their land and the violent enslavement of Africans.You don't fuck with my stuff and I won't fuck with yours, and we will live in peace.
Now, look at it this way.
Caveman A is a great hunter. He gets all the food he and his family need for the winter. Caveman B is a lazy twat who frolics all summer and fails to prepare.
Is Caveman B entitled to some of Caveman A's meat?
Well, you're a fucking troll. I thought that's the reaction you wanted.You're just expressing the limits of your own imagination Booty. As I said earlier people can choose to work together.
Why are you lashing out in anger, like a child, over a simple conversation?
Booty you're a moron and thus can't help but give me the reaction I want. Everything that comes out of your mouth is hilarious to me.Well, you're a fucking troll. I thought that's the reaction you wanted.
The ability to do violence is inherent. The ability to cooperate peacefully is also inherent.Which means they aren't inherent.
ALL countries were built the same way. Even the fucking natives who lived here LONG before white people beat the fucking shit out of each other for land and resources. So, how is ANY of that different what resulted? The fact that white people did it? That's it, isn't it?The question is, what makes it your stuff? There were people here before you and this country was built on the conquest of their land and the violent enslavement of Africans.
The same as EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH.What does this have to do with the reality of how property rights came to exist in this country? I don't need hypotheticals I have actual reality.
No, I get it now. You're mad that you're not white.Booty you're a moron and thus can't help but give me the reaction I want. Everything that comes out of your mouth is hilarious to me.
Neither of which makes rights inherent.The ability to do violence is inherent. The ability to cooperate peacefully is also inherent.
You're so angry and insecure.ALL countries were built the same way. Even the fucking natives who lived here LONG before white people beat the fucking shit out of each other for land and resources. So, how is ANY of that different what resulted? The fact that white people did it? That's it, isn't it?
My argument here exists outside moral judgement. It's an analytical one. You can't get to property rights without violence and conquest. You can choose to share resources peacefully, though very few civilizations or groups of humans throughout history have chosen to do so, but the entire idea behind a right to property is that it belongs to you and therefore you have a right to defend it with violence. The right exists to solely to justify the violent defense of land. Which is a different argument than whether or not property rights are born out of violence and conflict.The same as EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH.
What fairy tale are you living in?
