or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by jazzguru

  Quote me where I said that. Oh, wait. I didn't.
  Whatever you say, jimmac. 
  Actually, absent institutionalized plunder and violence, I think we'd enjoy the greatest period of abundance and prosperity the world has ever known.
  Let me simplify my question:   Let's use a specific example that most people would agree would be "wrong" and "immoral": stealing.   It's wrong for me to go to the corner convenience store and take a candy bar without paying for it, agreed?   Do you believe it is any less "wrong" or "immoral" for a group of individuals acting together to engage in stealing when it is almost universally considered "wrong" and "immoral" for an individual to do so? Why or why not?
  Libertarians seldom define what is right or moral? You apparently have some reading to do. The non-aggression principle is a good place to start.   And he didn't ask a question, he made a statement, which I responded to with a question...which you apparently don't want to answer.   Irony, indeed.
  Why should I see "society" as something it is clearly not?   My child does not impose his will on me through violence.   My child does not take my money and property without my consent.   And I made the conscious choice to start a family and assume the duties and responsibilities it entailed.   "Society" (a group of individuals) imposes its will on me through violence.   "Society" (a group of individuals) makes its claim on me and my substance whether I consent or...
  I'm sure I could guess, but I'm not familiar with those exact terms, their meanings, or origins.   From a libertarian perspective, "society" is nothing more than a group of interacting individuals.   Rothbard lays it out quite nicely:     Rothbard goes on to say that other terms such as "nation" and "country" have also been used in such a context, but the meaning is the same.   How would you answer the question I posed above?
  Please read the following statement carefully:   If I am going to grow, I must take money from you to invest in my education, health, and technology. If I don't, I can't compete.   Do you believe this statement is right and moral?   If not, please tell us how and why this statement is wrong and immoral, yet the statement you made is right and moral.
  Libertarians believe the greatest opportunity for universal prosperity and happiness lies in freedom rather than slavery - liberty rather than servitude.   Libertarians hope for a time when mankind will have progressed beyond the need for government - when the primary form of government is self-government.   In order for that to happen, though, the people themselves will have to overcome greed, selfishness, lust, anger, pride, and other destructive and aggressive...
  But what is desirable and undesirable is subjective, isn't it? Why should a group of individuals be allowed to violently force their idea of what is desirable/undesirable on everyone else?
New Posts  All Forums: