or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libertarianism - Page 15

post #561 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

FFS... I was using "you" in the rhetorical sense. My apologies for not making that clear. I have no idea if you have a wife. I do. I've also had a vasectomy. I guess that makes me a baby killer.

 

"I was attacking your rhetorical wife, not your real one. Sorry if you didn't understand that."

 

Gee, thanks.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #562 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I've also had a vasectomy.

 

TMI

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I guess that makes me a baby killer.

 

Huh?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #563 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I have no problem looking at not only pictures but videos of a first trimester fetus, and aborting that if that's what are the needs of the *very much alive* mother. The first trimester fetus is not a viable life in the view of science.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I mention science. Thanks for proving my point.

Nice red herring though.

 

Yes, this shows your demented view that science is merely to be used as a prop for your own biases.

 

You know fully well that medical science has continually expanded on our knowledge and ability to preserve lives at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy.

 

What you used to call "not viable" is now definitely viable. And you pretend that the left only advocates for such "first trimester abortions", when the reality is your side advocates for abortion without restriction, which is what we have now in Canada.

 

Your Abortion President, as previously noted, even advocates for terminating children who escape the abortionist in the womb.

 

Tell the truth Tonton. If we were able to make first trimester babies viable outside the womb tomorrow, would you then join the call for a ban on abortion?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If the so-called "pro-life" crowd were really interested in reducing abortions, they would insist on early and complete sex education, and easy access to multiple methods of birth control. That's what science tells us works best.

 

Nonsense. Teaching kids that sex is just another form of personal entertainment is a liberal dream, but it's always going to be a lie.

 

What science is telling us is that after four decades of liberal sex education, STDs are getting more dangerous, and STDs in public schools are at epidemic rates.

 

 

Doubling down on failed liberal social policies isn't going to change that.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #564 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I have no problem looking at not only pictures but videos of a first trimester fetus, and aborting that if that's what are the needs of the *very much alive* mother. The first trimester fetus is not a viable life in the view of science.


This is exactly what I'm talking about when I mention science. Thanks for proving my point.


Nice red herring though.

Yes, this shows your demented view that science is merely to be used as a prop for your own biases.

You know fully well that medical science has continually expanded on our knowledge and ability to preserve lives at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy.

What you used to call "not viable" is now definitely viable. And you pretend that the left only advocates for such "first trimester abortions", when the reality is your side advocates for abortion without restriction, which is what we have now in Canada.

Your Abortion President, as previously noted, even advocates for terminating children who escape the abortionist in the womb.

Tell the truth Tonton. If we were able to make first trimester babies viable outside the womb tomorrow, would you then join the call for a ban on abortion?
Ask me again when the science catches up with your mouth. Maybe we'll talk about things like adoption and expansion of the fostering program. Fact is, you care nothing about the welfare of the mother and an unwanted child. You don't learn your values from the heart, where one might care about those things with compassion. You don't even learn your values from the Bible, which recognizes life as the "first breath". You get your values from the pulpit and from what someone else tells you. Try using your own heart and your own brain to solve problems. Not the word of the Church, a word that is not even mentioned in your beloved book.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If the so-called "pro-life" crowd were really interested in reducing abortions, they would insist on early and complete sex education, and easy access to multiple methods of birth control. That's what science tells us works best.

Nonsense. Teaching kids that sex is just another form of personal entertainment is a liberal dream, but it's always going to be a lie.
No. The lie is that that's what we're advocating to be taught. That's the lie. How ironic for you to call me a liar, in the same statement where you lie so heinously. Or are you really that stupid to believe that's what we really are advocating?
Quote:
What science is telling us is that after four decades of liberal sex education, STDs are getting more dangerous, and STDs in public schools are at epidemic rates.
From your linked story:

"However, the high rates of STD infections has been falling slightly over the last year and a half - a trend that Schwarz attributes to the four million free condoms that the city has given away through health officials and school nurses over that time period."

STDs are not getting more dangerous. Thats another lie, unless you mean they are getting more dangerous because red states are refusing to teach how to avoid them and how to recognize them and how to treat them. Tell me... Are teen pregnancy and STDs more of a problem in red states or in blue states? Are they a problem in the most liberal nations like the Netherlands?

Who is more likely to get pregnant as a teen... an outspoken conservative governor's daughter who has been taught abstinence all her life, or... Someone like Feinstein's daughters?
Quote:
Doubling down on failed liberal social policies isn't going to change that.
doubling down on conservative stupidity and ignorance will make things much, much worse.
Edited by tonton - 1/27/13 at 1:04am
post #565 of 735
My apologies, I failed to address your second link. You do know that drug resistant gonorrhea has nothing to do with promiscuity, right?
post #566 of 735
And everything to do with EVOLUTION.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #567 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And everything to do with EVOLUTION.
Of course you're right! How ironic!
post #568 of 735

What I still don't understand is... who enforces the "non-aggression principle", and how do they do that without using force against their target, who may feel they haven't done anything wrong? What if the "target" was a victim of mistaken identity? Should they then use force to defend themselves against the aggression directed at them?

 

Let's go back to the example of the private roadway that leads to your house. The owner of the roadway wants $100 a month for your right to drive on that road. Everybody else in the neighborhood pays, for whatever reason (and there might be any of a number of reasons), so market forces won't change anything. You don't want to pay. So how does the owner of the roadway enforce their decision not to let you drive on the roadway, when you do so anyway, to get to work? How can they do that without using force? How can you get your car out of your driveway without using force?

 

Or is your utopia so complete that you think these problems don't occur?

 

The rule of law attempts to deal with these kinds of problems. And the rule of law requires enforcement, and enforcement requires force at some point or another.

 

Now... one of the laws is that all citizens earning over a certain amount, less deductions, needs to pay taxes. You may not like it, but that's the law. How should that be enforced?

post #569 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What I still don't understand is... who enforces the "non-aggression principle", and how do they do that without using force against their target, who may feel they haven't done anything wrong? What if the "target" was a victim of mistaken identity? Should they then use force to defend themselves against the aggression directed at them?

 

You are right, you don't understand. Non-aggression != pacifism.

 

The basic principle goes like this:

 

  1. No one (by "no one," it means NO ONE) has any moral right to initiate violence or aggression or coercion or force against anyone else (by "anyone else," it means ANYONE ELSE.)
  2. Everyone (and by "everyone," it means EVERYONE) has the moral right to defend themselves against anyone (by "anyone," it means ANYONE) that violates the first principle.

 

Does this make any sense to you?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #570 of 735
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #571 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What I still don't understand is... who enforces the "non-aggression principle", and how do they do that without using force against their target, who may feel they haven't done anything wrong? What if the "target" was a victim of mistaken identity? Should they then use force to defend themselves against the aggression directed at them?

 

You are right, you don't understand. Non-aggression != pacifism.

 

The basic principle goes like this:

 

  1. No one (by "no one," it means NO ONE) has any moral right to initiate violence or aggression or coercion or force against anyone else (by "anyone else," it means ANYONE ELSE.)
  2. Everyone (and by "everyone," it means EVERYONE) has the moral right to defend themselves against anyone (by "anyone," it means ANYONE) that violates the first principle.

 

Does this make any sense to you?


So tell me again, how do you arrest someone for murder (you didn't actually see them do it)? Or do you just let them go?

 

It will only make sense to me when you can answer that question.

post #572 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So tell me again, how do you arrest someone for murder (you didn't actually see them do it)? Or do you just let them go?

 

Good question. How do you? You didn't see someone commit the murder the, it seems, you don't know who did it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It will only make sense to me when you can answer that question.

 

Do you understand the principles as I explained them? Do you agree with either, neither or both of them? Why or why not?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #573 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So tell me again, how do you arrest someone for murder (you didn't actually see them do it)? Or do you just let them go?

 

Good question. How do you? You didn't see someone commit the murder the, it seems, you don't know who did it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It will only make sense to me when you can answer that question.

 

Do you understand the principles as I explained them? Do you agree with either, neither or both of them? Why or why not?


Well. The butler has his fingerprints on the lead pipe, and he has blood on the soles of his shoes... and he was the only one who was apparently in the house...

 

Is there no rule of law at all in your utopia? No trials? No arrests? No evidence to be considered?

 

So answer me again, while the butler is buying a ticket to Mexico.

post #574 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Well. The butler has his fingerprints on the lead pipe, and he has blood on the soles of his shoes... and he was the only one who was apparently in the house...

 

Is there no rule of law at all in your utopia? No trials? No arrests? No evidence to be considered?

 

So answer me again, while the butler is buying a ticket to Mexico.

 

Of course there are and will be. Are you being simplistic on purpose here?

 

BTW...the basic principles of this are covered in that paper I posted which you dismissed, apparently without actually trying to read and understand.

 

Will you answer my questions?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #575 of 735

I disagree with your principles completely, because enforcement of law requires force, and not everything that is illegal was initiative force, so the force required to enforce those laws must be initiative.

 

Unless you would have no laws, including against murder, unless it was actually literally witnessed by the eye.

 

But that brings up another dilemma.

 

You witness someone kill your brother. You use force on them in defense, or in enforcement of your one law. But you're the only one who witnessed the murder.

 

A bunch of people come in (friends of the guy who killed your brother) and see you using force against the guy. They then use force against you... and so on... and so forth...

 

You see, in the enforcement of law, even against something so obviously NOT acceptable like murder, at some moment, initiative force has to be used, unless we are somehow omniscient and completely error-free.

 

The fact that we are not omniscient and error-free is precisely what makes libertarianism utopian and impracticable.

post #576 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I disagree with your principles completely, because enforcement of law requires force, and not everything that is illegal was initiative force, so the force required to enforce those laws must be initiative.

 

Except that you're wrong here, and it is subtle. When you have committed a violation of the first principle, you are subject to the second. Which, properly understood, is not initiative force or violence.

 

There is a great deal of literature on this subject. This literature can present the subject much more completely and systematically and properly than can be done in this forum.

 

If you are actually serious about understanding it you'll seek out this literature (it's not hard to find at all) and read it.

 

I doubt you are serious about understanding it beyond the simplistic and superficial manner you've shown here and that will you spend any time reading it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #577 of 735

You can't brush this off and ask me to read about it.

 

I asked you a very simple question, which is not subtle at all.

 

How do you know that someone has in fact committed a crime, and if you are quite sure (but not 100% sure), what do you do? Let them go? Is there no provision for a trial? And if someone accuses you of a crime, and you haven't committed one, do you use force to defend yourself or not?

 

I think you actually don't even know the answer to these questions yourself.

post #578 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You can't brush this off and ask me to read about it.

 

Watch me.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I asked you a very simple question, which is not subtle at all.

 

How do you know that someone has in fact committed a crime, and if you are quite sure (but not 100% sure), what do you do? Let them go? Is there no provision for a trial? And if someone accuses you of a crime, and you haven't committed one, do you use force to defend yourself or not?

 

I think you actually don't even know the answer to these questions yourself.

 

You are free to think whatever you want about me. Knock yourself out.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #579 of 735
When the questions probe areas in which he's uncomfortable, MJ has a way of just shutting it all down.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #580 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

When the questions probe areas in which he's uncomfortable, MJ has a way of just shutting it all down.

 

You inference, shockingly, is incorrect.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #581 of 735
"Sir, he's asking me uncomfortable questions that I have no good answers for. What do I do?"

L08ao.gif

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #582 of 735

The Reluctant Anarchist

 

 

Quote:
Hans argued that no constitution could restrain the state. Once its monopoly of force was granted legitimacy, constitutional limits became mere fictions it could disregard; nobody could have the legal standing to enforce those limits. The state itself would decide, by force, what the constitution “meant,” steadily ruling in its own favor and increasing its own power. This was true a priori, and American history bore it out. 
 
What if the Federal Government grossly violated the Constitution? Could states withdraw from the Union? Lincoln said no. The Union was “indissoluble” unless all the states agreed to dissolve it. As a practical matter, the Civil War settled that. The United States, plural, were really a single enormous state, as witness the new habit of speaking of “it” rather than “them.” 
 
So the people are bound to obey the government even when the rulers betray their oath to uphold the Constitution. The door to escape is barred. Lincoln in effect claimed that it is not our rights but the state that is “unalienable.” And he made it stick by force of arms. No transgression of the Constitution can impair the Union’s inherited legitimacy. Once established on specific and limited terms, the U.S. Government is forever, even if it refuses to abide by those terms. 
 
As Hoppe argues, this is the flaw in thinking the state can be controlled by a constitution. Once granted, state power naturally becomes absolute. Obedience is a one-way street. Notionally, “We the People” create a government and specify the powers it is allowed to exercise over us; our rulers swear before God that they will respect the limits we impose on them; but when they trample down those limits, our duty to obey them remains.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #583 of 735
Lovely non sequitur. Explain how that answers tonton's question. I bet that you can't and won't. I'd love to be wrong about that.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #584 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Lovely non sequitur.

 

To what are you referring? If you want to address me, at least quote me. Be a good internet citizen.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #585 of 735
You didn't actually post any original text to quote, MJ. Look at the gameplaying here, everyone. Another artless dodge.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #586 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You didn't actually post any original text to quote, MJ. Look at the gameplaying here, everyone.

 

So you're referring to the link and quoted excerpt?

 

Yeah...it's not a non sequitur in regard to tonton's recent posts because it was not intended as a response to those posts. 1rolleyes.gif

 

It does however address some things tonton had recently claimed about our "weapons" lol.gif against tryanny...the constitution and the vote.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Another artless dodge.

 

1rolleyes.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #587 of 735
Ah, right. The coward's approach. Sure, don't answer his questions. Your lack of a response speaks loudly on its own.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #588 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ah, right. The coward's approach. Sure, don't answer his questions. Your lack of a response speaks loudly on its own.

 

Out for a troll today are we?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #589 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Out for a troll today are we?

At least you include yourself in that statement, bringing it from false to half true.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #590 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

At least you include yourself in that statement, bringing it from false to half true.

 

That was actually pretty good. Too bad you're incapable of such artfulness on substantive topics.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #591 of 735
Or perhaps you are just too much of an idealogue to appreciate it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #592 of 735
Thread Starter 

"Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought." - Lord Acton

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #593 of 735
Thread Starter 

Now We Know: War Is Murder

 

Quote:

There is no more awesome power than the power to wipe out scores, hundreds, or thousands of people with a pen stroke, and presidents have that power. If that isn't despotism, nothing else is.
 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #594 of 735
Thread Starter 

If you behaved like your government, you'd be arrested.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #595 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

If you behaved like your government, you'd be arrested.
And if you behaved like a surgeon, you'd be arrested. So what's your point? It's not my job to keep the peace, nor to enforce laws. I'd expect to be arrested for doing something dangerous that I'm not authorized to do. Only someone with a pipe dream thinks that everyone should have the right to do anything at all, without consequence.
post #596 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And if you behaved like a surgeon, you'd be arrested. So what's your point?

 

It's that thing that just "whooshed" over your head. lol.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Only someone with a pipe dream thinks that everyone should have the right to do anything at all, without consequence.

 

 

And you end the night with another straw man. Nice.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #597 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


And if you behaved like a surgeon, you'd be arrested. So what's your point?

 

The government should not be able to do anything you or I cannot do.

 

 

Quote:
Only someone with a pipe dream thinks that everyone should have the right to do anything at all, without consequence.

 

Please quote me where I claimed or even implied such a thing.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #598 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


And if you behaved like a surgeon, you'd be arrested. So what's your point?

 

The government should not be able to do anything you or I cannot do.

 

How about arrest and incarcerate someone for committing a crime? Should you or I be able to do that? Should the government?

post #599 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And if you behaved like a surgeon, you'd be arrested. So what's your point?

 

It's that thing that just "whooshed" over your head. lol.gif

 

I'll ignore the ridicule, and ask you to please explain then.

 

As I said, you're not authorized to be a surgeon, and I'm not authorized to be carry out the duties of the government. If there's any "whooshing", it's you not seeing the parallel.

post #600 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How about arrest and incarcerate someone for committing a crime? Should you or I be able to do that? Should the government?

 

It's called self-defense.

 

Or are you implying that we do not have the right or ability to defend ourselves or others against aggression by subduing or detaining the aggressors? That we must call the police and hope they arrive before we are harmed or killed or our property is stolen or destroyed?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism