Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Those people aren't here to argue their philosophies, if you want to take a stab at it by all means....Deliberate aggression doesn't obviate the core concept.
WTF?
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Never heard of Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke?
As I suspected.....You've read one short book, and now consider yourself an expert on all facets of the ethos.
Using force to repel aggressors is a natural right.
Well, we should put a stop to that. State policy will inevitably impact some more than others, but we should do our best to prevent the use of government as as tool to acquire wealth.Some people have more to trade than others because of actions by the State.
I love talking about freedom. I just don't like arm wrestling over definitions. In the context of free markets, it just means we can trade without government interference. The only time government should come into play is if and when there are disputes.This market economy is merely a reinvention of a formerly colonial one. I understand you don't want to talk about freedom, but Freedom and Property are at the heart of the idea of the Free Market.
Well, first of all - to clarify - libertarians aren't anarchists. We're not suggesting that markets should operate without government or laws. But the concept of property is a natural extrapolation of humanity, starting with self-ownership. The fact that some people will respect a claim on property, and some won't, is why we have government and laws.Absent of government or laws, why would one stranger concede "ownership" of say an apple tree to another stranger?
It's a human mentality. It's utterly necessary for survival.At the heart this idea of property is that you have a right to claim resources to yourself. It's a colonial mentality.
The same "place" all rights come from.Where does this right come from?
I've not read much Bastiat, but my understanding is that - for most authors who used the phrase "god-given rights" - it merely means innate. A condition of birth, based on our inherent capacity for volition. Citing "god-given", aka "inalienable", rights is not a religious claim.Bastiat was clear, he thought it came from God. Why should I accept God as a sound reasoning any more than the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus or Buddha?
Well, at least we agree on that much.I'm saying morality is subjective rather than objective.
Force and manipulation is the bread and butter of collectivism.Those people aren't here to argue their philosophies, if you want to take a stab at it by all means....
Using force to repel aggressors is something we're capable of as humans with varying degrees of skill and success. That is an observation of nature. When you say this natural ability to use force is your right, what does that actually mean?
Maybe we are unclear on where you're confused.Those people aren't here to argue their philosophies, if you want to take a stab at it by all means....
Using force to repel aggressors is something we're capable of as humans with varying degrees of skill and success. That is an observation of nature. When you say this natural ability to use force is your right, what does that actually mean?
All they care about is power and not freedom, and which is why most world leaders seem to be sociopaths.Maybe we are unclear on where you're confused.
Do you have a right to breathe?
Do you have a right to seek that which is necessary to sustain your life?
Do you believe you have the right to protect your self, and the resources procure to sustain your life?
Do you believe in the concept of unalienable rights?
"The Law" is what he keeps referring back to....It covers the most bare building blocks of the philosophy, takes about an hour to read, and is easy to digest....It's obviously he only books/pamphlets (or one of the extremely few) he had read on the topic, as evidenced by the puerile and economically illiterate conclusions he draws.I've not read much Bastiat, but my understanding is that - for most authors who used the phrase "god-given rights" - it merely means innate. A condition of birth, based on our inherent capacity for volition. Citing "god-given", aka "inalienable", rights is not a religious claim.
You can't prevent government from being a tool to aquire wealth when at its very nature it exists to protect wealth.Well, we should put a stop to that. State policy will inevitably impact some more than others, but we should do our best to prevent the use of government as as tool to acquire wealth.
It came into play when it was established to protect property through force. That is one of the main purposes of governments existence.I love talking about freedom. I just don't like arm wrestling over definitions. In the context of free markets, it just means we can trade without government interference. The only time government should come into play is if and when there are disputes.
Understood.Well, first of all - to clarify - libertarians aren't anarchists. We're not suggesting that markets should operate without government or laws.
What does this mean exactly? Do you mean that if you climb up a tree and retrieve an apple then that apple is now your property? Because that's a philosophical point, not an objective observation. An objective observation would be that you climbed a tree and retrieved an apple and now it is in your possession. But if I take it from you then now it's in my possession. That's also an objective observation. The idea that the apple belongs to you and its wrong for me to take it from you is not objective, it's subjective.But the concept of property is a natural extrapolation of humanity, starting with self-ownership.
In other words you use force to keep others away from your claims on natural resources. Same as everyone. None of this hubris is particular to libertarians, I'm just often amused by them because they often think their beliefs are based on logic and reason rather than desire.The fact that some people will respect a claim on property, and some won't, is why we have government and laws.
This is a really common argument. Liberals like to cite the primacy of government, claiming that property and rights (indeed, everything good in society!) wouldn't exist without the state.
It doesn't matter, I was just wondering if you had a rational argument for rights predating government. What about African slaves in early America? How did their rights predate the 13th Amendment? Do you mean in your heart you believed them to be free?I've talked about my view that those rights actually predate government, but I wonder: why does it matter?
No, I'm establishing that the market relies on government and both the government and the market are not naturally occuring phenomenon, they are social constructs, and as such the outcomes of a "free" market aren't natural forces but in a fundamental way, are manufactured ones. That's a logical conclusion isn't it?What are you trying to establish and what does it imply? Are you saying that, because we need government, we have no business questioning it, or placing limits on its power?
Resources are a necessity for survival not legal rights to property. That is supposed to be a means by which to obtain survival. Legal property is the means, survival the ends. When the means are no longer able to provide the ends for people, what good is it? Property is finite, it has a limit. When the top 5% can own 99% of the Earth's resources than that isn't just a market force, that's a fundamental flaw in your system.It's a human mentality. It's utterly necessary for survival.
Which is where?The same "place" all rights come from.
What kind of claim is it? Why should I accept as a premise, something you insist exists but whose existence you can't rationally explain to me?I've not read much Bastiat, but my understanding is that - for most authors who used the phrase "god-given rights" - it merely means innate. A condition of birth, based on our inherent capacity for volition. Citing "god-given", aka "inalienable", rights is not a religious claim.
I don't have an issue with disagreement.Well, at least we agree on that much.
So you don't believe in force? You're a pacifist are you?Force and manipulation is the bread and butter of collectivism.
This may be true, yet most will vote for one of the major party's. No one has come up with a person that both party's respect & believe will work for the betterment of our country as a whole. The requirements are just to vast.Maybe the dims and rethugs are incapable of running good candidates. More people are arriving at that fact.
I have the ability to breathe. Do you have to ability to stop me from breathing?Maybe we are unclear on where you're confused.
Do you have a right to breathe?
I have the ability to.Do you have a right to seek that which is necessary to sustain your life?
Fuck no.Do you believe you have the right to protect your self, and the resources procure to sustain your life?
Do you believe in the concept of unalienable rights?
I also don't believe in Santa Claus.
100% economic illiteracy..."The market" is a force of nature, like the weather....With the exception that "The Market" has subjective and sometimes highly irrational people driving it, instead of planetary motion, circulating air currents and so on....It takes no gubmint whatsoever for rme to trade my bag of apples for a few silver coins with my neighbor.No, I'm establishing that the market relies on government and both the government and the market are not naturally occuring phenomenon, they are social constructs, and as such the outcomes of a "free" market aren't natural forces but in a fundamental way, a manufactured ones.
No, that's a few seizing the machinations of lawmaking to their benefit.....A clear indication that The Stare is fart to big and has far too much power to choose winners and losers.....That's no fault of the free market.Resources are a necessity for survival not legal rights to property. That is supposed to be a means by which to obtain survival. Legal property is the means, survival the ends. When the means are no longer able to provide the ends for people, what good is it? Property is finite, it has a limit. When the top 5% can own 99% of the Earth's resources than that isn't just a market force, that's a fundamental flaw in your system.
Soooo..... not like the weather at all.100% economic illiteracy..."The market" is a force of nature, like the weather....With the exception that "The Market" has subjective and sometimes highly irrational people driving it, instead of planetary motion, circulating air currents and so on....
You're confusing two different systems. A barter system for example, means you exchange apples for shoes. The introduction of coins is a monetary system. It requires a government to enforce the value of the coins. Otherwise you trade apples for coins and go to buy shoes and shoemaker tells you piss off, he only accepts trade in diamonds.It takes no gubmint whatsoever for rme to trade my bag of apples for a few silver coins with my neighbor.
Explain to me how property even comes about naturally. Two men are walking in the woods one decides he owns all that he sees, now what? The other guy just agrees?No, that's a few seizing the machinations of lawmaking to their benefit.....A clear indication that The Stare is fart to big and has far too much power to choose winners and losers.....That's no fault of the free market.
Similar in the fact that it's a force of nature that nobody can control.Soooo..... not like the weather at all.
I'm confusing nothing....The free exchange of goods is the cornerstone of the market....Your economic illiteracy is rearing its pointy head again.You're confusing two different systems. A barter system for example, means you exchange apples for shoes. The introduction of coins is a monetary system. It requires a government to enforce the value of the coins. Otherwise you trade apples for coins and go to buy shoes and shoemaker tells you piss off, he only accepts trade in diamonds.
They could....They'd then have to deal with thousands of other people who might have something else to say on the matter.....WTF does this have to do with anything?Explain to me how property even comes about naturally. Two men are walking in the woods one decides he owns all that he sees, now what? The other guy just agrees?
Micaucs rule.Right....For libertarians whith their heads screwed on straight (which excludes most LP members) that's in the context of an abolished welfare state.
You can minimize it - primarily by limiting government's power to control wealth in the first place.You can't prevent government from being a tool to aquire wealth when at its very nature it exists to protect wealth.
Yep. That's why we need government.What does this mean exactly? Do you mean that if you climb up a tree and retrieve an apple then that apple is now your property? Because that's a philosophical point, not an objective observation. An objective observation would be that you climbed a tree and retrieved an apple and now it is in your possession. But if I take it from you then now it's in my possession. That's also an objective observation. The idea that the apple belongs to you and its wrong for me to take it from you is not objective, it's subjective.
That just seems a gratuitous slur. Logic and reason support sane property laws.In other words you use force to keep others away from your claims on natural resources. Same as everyone. None of this hubris is particular to libertarians, I'm just often amused by them because they often think their beliefs are based on logic and reason rather than desire.
I think we're talking past each other with regard to "rights". It's a common equivocation that plagues these arguments. When modern liberals discuss rights, they tend to mean, exclusively, "those rights protected by government", and see any discussion of a right that isn't already protected by government as meaningless. I don't. There are plenty of rights I'd like to see government do a better job of protecting - mostly by not violating them in the first place.It doesn't matter, I was just wondering if you had a rational argument for rights predating government. What about African slaves in early America? How did their rights predate the 13th Amendment? Do you mean in your heart you believed them to be free?
Maybe? It just seems irrelevant. Why is it important, for you, to make that point, in this argument? What does it establish in your view? You seem to be arguing against the value of free markets, or maybe freedom in general, but I'm not sure how this applies.No, I'm establishing that the market relies on government and both the government and the market are not naturally occuring phenomenon, they are social constructs, and as such the outcomes of a "free" market aren't natural forces but in a fundamental way, are manufactured ones. That's a logical conclusion isn't it?
Not necessarily. Given the amount of corruption and economic power tied up in government, I'd concede that a lot of wealth concentration isn't actually a function of the market - and is instead acquired through political influence. But, to the extent that a market is free, it is an accurate assessment of the values of its participants. If consumers and investors decide to give the bulk of their money to one person, or a few, why is that inherently bad?Property is finite, it has a limit. When the top 5% can own 99% of the Earth's resources than that isn't just a market force, that's a fundamental flaw in your system.
See above. The concept of "inalienable rights" is merely an observation about the nature of volition. Such rights are infinite.Which is where?
Except it's not a force of nature....I really don't know how to have a conversation with someone who insists in living in an alternate reality.Similar in the fact that it's a focer of nature that nobody can control.
I'm trying to explain to you that barter of one good for another is possible without government but coinage absolutely requires some sort of government, you don't even understand that the market is a social construct, you think it's like the wind, so this might be beyond your simple understanding.I'm confusing nothing....The free exchage of goods is the cornerstone of the market....Your economic illiteracy is rearing its pointy head again.
Why don't you focus on trying to discern the difference between natural forces and social constructs.They cold....They'd then have to deal with thousands of other people who might have something else to say on the matter.....WTF does this have to do with anything?
I never said that.So you don't believe in force? You're a pacifist are you?
Thomas Jefferson considered the concentration of wealth in a few hands to be a crime against Nature. He felt that our government could not do enough to mitigate it.Some people have more to trade than others because of actions by the State. This market economy is merely a reinvention of a formerly colonial one. I understand you don't want to talk about freedom, but Freedom and Property are at the heart of the idea of the Free Market.
Absent of government or laws, why would one stranger concede "ownership" of say a apple tree to another stranger? At the heart this idea of property is that your have a right to claim resources to yourself. It's a colonial mentality. Where does this right come from? Bastiat was clear, he thought it came from God. Why should I accept God as a sound reasoning any more than the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus or Buddha?
That's not a right. That's just force.
I'm saying morality is subjective rather than objective.
