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

Libertarianism - Page 17

post #641 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Libertarians want maximum liberty for all. Oooh...how extreme.

 

Don't be afraid of the "extremism" label. If the extremism is good, it is nothing to be ashamed of. Furthermore, "moderate" can sound good but be sinister if all you're doing is using it as a label to paint over your bad, flawed and harmful policies and authoritarian ways.

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 #642 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yep. Extremist.

Libertarians want maximum liberty for all. Oooh...how extreme.

What were your quiz results?
Maximum liberty for all gives all the liberty to harm others and society, so yes, I oppose absolute liberty, even when it precludes initiative violence. There are other ways to harm and to victimize people than through violence. People should be afforded some protection against such victimization, yes.

I scored 30/80 economic/personal
post #643 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Maximum liberty for all gives all the liberty to harm others and society, so yes, I oppose absolute liberty, even when it precludes initiative violence. There are other ways to harm and to victimize people than through violence. People should be afforded some protection against such victimization, yes.

I scored 30/80 economic/personal

 

 

By nature humans do not have complete liberty.  Sacrifice and interdependence are necessary for survival as a species.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #644 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


By nature humans do not have complete liberty.  Sacrifice and interdependence are necessary for survival as a species.

And some believe such interactions should be voluntary.

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 #645 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


By nature humans do not have complete liberty.  Sacrifice and interdependence are necessary for survival as a species.

And some believe such interactions should be voluntary.
True or false? There are other ways to harm and victimize people than through violence.
post #646 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

True or false? There are other ways to harm and victimize people than through violence.

True. I have never said violence is the only form of aggression. It is the form most often employed by the State. I am opposed to all forms of aggression, whether from an individual or a group of individuals calling themselves a government.

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 #647 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


True. I have never said violence is the only form of aggression. It is the form most often employed by the State. I am opposed to all forms of aggression, whether from an individual or a group of individuals calling themselves a government.

And yet you are a proud member of a cult that perpetrates all sorts of aggression.

 

“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 #648 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

True or false? There are other ways to harm and victimize people than through violence.

True. I have never said violence is the only form of aggression. It is the form most often employed by the State. I am opposed to all forms of aggression, whether from an individual or a group of individuals calling themselves a government.
So do you consider individual acts of discrimination aggressive behavior?
post #649 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


So do you consider individual acts of discrimination aggressive behavior?

 

In what context? We all discriminate every day. Discrimination, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. In fact, in a free society, discrimination is a right.

 

Dr. Walter E. Williams (who is black, I might point out), elaborates on this very subject:

 

 

Quote:
Should people have the right to discriminate by race, sex, religion and other attributes? In a free society, I say yes. Let's look at it. When I was selecting a marriage partner, I systematically discriminated against white women, Asian women and women of other ethnicities that I found less preferable. The Nation of Islam discriminates against white members. The Aryan Brotherhood discriminates against having black members. The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members. The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks. The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members.
 
You say, Williams, that's different. It's not like public transportation, restaurants and hotel service in which Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act "prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment." While there are many places that serve the public, it doesn't change the fact that they are privately owned, and who is admitted, under what conditions, should be up to the owner.
 
If places of public accommodation were free to racially discriminate, how much racial discrimination would there be? In answering that question, we should acknowledge that just because a person is free to do something, it doesn't follow that he will find it in his interest to do so. An interesting example is found in an article by Dr. Jennifer Roback titled "The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars," in Journal of Economic History (1986). During the late 1800s, private streetcar companies in Augusta, Houston, Jacksonville, Mobile, Montgomery and Memphis were not segregated, but by the early 1900s, they were. Why? City ordinances forced them to segregate black and white passengers. Numerous Jim Crow laws ruled the day throughout the South mandating segregation in public accommodations.
 
When one sees a law on the books, he should suspect that the law is there because not everyone would voluntarily comply with the law's specifications. Extra-legal measures, that included violence, backed up Jim Crow laws. When white solidarity is confronted by the specter of higher profits by serving blacks, it's likely that profits will win. Thus, Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights represented government countering government-backed Jim Crow laws.
 
One does not have to be a racist to recognize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit racial or any other kind of discrimination by private parties. Moreover, the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems appropriate. It comes when he permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive.

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 #650 of 735

Jazz & MJ value the freedom to be cosmic dicks over society allowing a maximum tolerable level of dickishness.  

 

“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 #651 of 735
Let's say, in a racially charged town in the Deep South, that every white church has a "no negro" policy.

One particular white church starts allowing blacks, because the pastor thinks that it's the righteous thing to do.

Not only that. They allow a marriage between a black man and a white woman.

What do you think is going to happen to that church?

Likewise, every gun shop in town refuses to sell to blacks.

One enterprising shop owner realizes he can make huge profits as the only one who will sell to blacks.

What do you think is going to happen to the shop?
post #652 of 735
Thread Starter 

Did you ignore the example from the excerpt I posted?

 

 

Quote:
If places of public accommodation were free to racially discriminate, how much racial discrimination would there be? In answering that question, we should acknowledge that just because a person is free to do something, it doesn't follow that he will find it in his interest to do so. An interesting example is found in an article by Dr. Jennifer Roback titled "The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars," in Journal of Economic History (1986). During the late 1800s, private streetcar companies in Augusta, Houston, Jacksonville, Mobile, Montgomery and Memphis were not segregated, but by the early 1900s, they were. Why? City ordinances forced them to segregate black and white passengers. Numerous Jim Crow laws ruled the day throughout the South mandating segregation in public accommodations.

 

Segregation was the law of the land, passed and enforced by your beloved government.

 

Let me ask you this: who owns you? Who owns your property?

 

Am I entitled to use your property without your permission?

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 #653 of 735

Even if the US became absolutely free, there are other nations in the world. They have to be dealt with.  And then you start needing control.

 

I cringe also to imagine what would happen to our environment if companies were completely free to pursue profit at all cost without regulation.

 

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20130218_31.html

 

Profit now!  No customers in the future!  Who cares!  Profit now!  Me!  Me!  ME!

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #654 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Even if the US became absolutely free, there are other nations in the world. They have to be dealt with.  And then you start needing control.

 

I cringe also to imagine what would happen to our environment if companies were completely free to pursue profit at all cost without regulation.

 

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20130218_31.html

 

Profit now!  No customers in the future!  Who cares!  Profit now!  Me!  Me!  ME!

 

I believe we can have a strong national defense without meddling in the affairs of other nations.

 

Also: a truly free market is self-regulating.


Edited by jazzguru - 2/18/13 at 8:08am

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 #655 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

 

 ― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

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 #656 of 735

What a beautiful straw man.

 

“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 #657 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 #658 of 735

The fact that the racist people in the South passed laws to legitimize their racism didn't make them any less racist, nor did it preclude them from discriminating of their own free will absent any laws. Why do you ignore this?

 

Now, in my examples, there are no laws for or against racism. Without introducing any more straw men, what do you think would happen in those scenarios?

post #659 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The fact that the racist people in the South passed laws to legitimize their racism didn't make them any less racist, nor did it preclude them from discriminating of their own free will absent any laws. Why do you ignore this?

 

Ignore what? That discrimination and violence existed beforehand? What you are ignoring is the fact that the government institutionalized discrimination, made it universal, and claimed it was legitimate. And what was the response when challenged on it? The same response you give me time and time again when I share my views: "if you don't like it then leave". Unacceptable.

 

 

Quote:
Now, in my examples, there are no laws for or against racism. Without introducing any more straw men, what do you think would happen in those scenarios?

 

I think unicorns would descend upon the land and poop jellybeans and cupcakes for all to enjoy.

 

Seriously, I couldn't even speculate. You've left too many variables unaccounted for. Why don't you tell me what you think would happen in your vague scenarios, because you're obviously fishing for an answer.

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 #660 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The fact that the racist people in the South passed laws to legitimize their racism didn't make them any less racist, nor did it preclude them from discriminating of their own free will absent any laws. Why do you ignore this?

 

Ignore what?

Ignore the fact that the racist people in the South passed laws to legitimize their racism didn't make them any less racist, nor did it preclude them from discriminating of their own free will absent any laws. So what shall we do about that?

 

Quote:
That discrimination and violence existed beforehand?

And afterhand as well. Even absent government. Will you admit this?

 

Quote:
What you are ignoring is the fact that the government institutionalized discrimination, made it universal, and claimed it was legitimate. And what was the response when challenged on it? The same response you give me time and time again when I share my views: "if you don't like it then leave". Unacceptable.

No, the response was to work within the system to rightfully change bad laws. An lo and behold! The system worked, and we no longer have those bad laws! Did this or did this not happen?

 

Now. What system would we work within to stop institutional broadly social racism absent laws and the means to enforce them?

post #661 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Seriously, I couldn't even speculate. You've left too many variables unaccounted for. Why don't you tell me what you think would happen in your vague scenarios, because you're obviously fishing for an answer.

You couldn't speculate, because to do so would be to admit that absent laws, the right of the church or the shop owner to not discriminate would be taken away not by government, but by society. The church would burn. The gun shop owner would be killed. There's no speculation about it. That's what would happen, judging from historical events.

post #662 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You couldn't speculate, because to do so would be to admit that absent laws, the right of the church or the shop owner to not discriminate would be taken away not by government, but by society. The church would burn. The gun shop owner would be killed. There's no speculation about it. That's what would happen, judging from historical events.

 

You are making some pretty outrageous assumptions, here.

 

Again, I cite the example of the unsegregated streetcars. Why were they not burned? Why were the owners not killed?

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

Ignore the fact that the racist people in the South passed laws to legitimize their racism didn't make them any less racist, nor did it preclude them from discriminating of their own free will absent any laws. So what shall we do about that?

 

Laws against racism don't make people any less racist, either.

 

 

Quote:

And afterhand as well. Even absent government. Will you admit this?

 

I did from the beginning. Everyone discriminates every day. Laws do not suddenly imbue people with a sense of morality.

 

 

Quote:

No, the response was to work within the system to rightfully change bad laws. An lo and behold! The system worked, and we no longer have those bad laws! Did this or did this not happen?

 

The laws were changed because people had the courage to disobey them. They stood up and said: "this is a bad law and I will not comply". The laws were not changed because of the system, they were changed in spite of it.

 

 

Quote:
Now. What system would we work within to stop institutional broadly social racism absent laws and the means to enforce them?

 

Do you honestly think that you can abolish evil with the stroke of a pen?


Edited by jazzguru - 2/19/13 at 8:18am

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 #664 of 735
Straw man. No one says the act of a stroke of a pen abolishes evil. It is a step on the pathway to doing so. It sets a societal standard and delineates what is acceptable and unacceptable. We as a society are working toward ending racism, and the laws against discrimination serve as a stepping stone on that long pathway. Of course, you are intimately involved with an organization that not only tolerated but officially promoted racism until 1978. Since then, you've moved on to promote discrimination against gays. I can see why you might not appreciate the government contradicting your desires to discriminate.

 

“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 #665 of 735
Nothing abolishes evil. But only an idiot or a liar would claim that we shouldn't try our best to limit certain undesirable things that we can't abolish, whensoever we are able to do so.
post #666 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Nothing abolishes evil. But only an idiot or a liar would claim that we shouldn't try our best to limit certain undesirable things that we can't abolish, whensoever we are able to do so.

 

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?

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 #667 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

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?

 

In many cases the harm of not forcing the idea is greater than the "harm" (which again I dispute even exists automatically) in forcing it. The harm of a lesbian couple unable to say goodbye to each other because of bigoted hospital employees is far greater than the harm of forbidding the bigots from discriminating.

 

“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 #668 of 735

I especially like how tonton declares those who disagree with his view and approach to be idiots or liars.

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 #669 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Nothing abolishes evil. But only an idiot or a liar would claim that we shouldn't try our best to limit certain undesirable things that we can't abolish, whensoever we are able to do so.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I especially like how tonton declares those who disagree with his view and approach to be idiots or liars.


The only logical conclusion that can be made from this statement, in response to the above, is that you think we should NEVER try our best to limit certain undesirable things that we can't abolish. Am I correct?

post #670 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The only logical conclusion that can be made from this statement, in response to the above, is that you think we should NEVER try our best to limit certain undesirable things that we can't abolish. Am I correct?

 

Actually that's not the only logical conclusion, because your first statement is begging the question that "we" all "doing our best" by resorting to the use of force to compel people to behave as we wish them to behave beyond the basics of don't physically assault or steal. If you deny that this is included in "doing our best" I'm going to call you a liar because the body of your writing clearly implies (if not outright says) that coercion is part of the toolbox you prefer.

 

When will you admit that you want to legislate your morality and you want to force your values onto others?

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 #671 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The only logical conclusion that can be made from this statement, in response to the above, is that you think we should NEVER try our best to limit certain undesirable things that we can't abolish. Am I correct?

 

Actually that's not the only logical conclusion...
 

You're right, but not because of the reason you state. The only logical conclusion is more correctly that you think that someone who thinks we should never try our best to limit certain undesirable things that we can't abolish is not an idiot or a liar.

 

 

Quote:
If you deny that this is included in "doing our best"...

 

I do not deny that at all. Law and the enforcement of law is definitely part of doing our best. If you want to call enforcement of law "coercion" then to say that all coercion is wrong would a fairly ridiculous statement.

post #672 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

When will you admit that you want to legislate your morality and you want to force your values onto others?

When will you admit that you want to force your morality on others (e.g. that taxes are theft or that law enforcement is coercion) by denying the right of others to legislate?

post #673 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

When will you admit that you want to force your morality on others (e.g. that taxes are theft or that law enforcement is coercion) by denying the right of others to legislate?

 

Yes, I want to "force" my values on other by denying them the "right" to force their values on me. Priceless! lol.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 #674 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I do not deny that at all. Law and the enforcement of law is definitely part of doing our best. If you want to call enforcement of law "coercion" then to say that all coercion is wrong would a fairly ridiculous statement.

 

So you're going to double-down on your question begging. Got 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 #675 of 735
Oh, bugger off. No question was begged and I made myself very clear. You'd rather ignore the points that I made and insert a straw man.
post #676 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

When will you admit that you want to force your morality on others (e.g. that taxes are theft or that law enforcement is coercion) by denying the right of others to legislate?

Yes, I want to "force" my values on other by denying them the "right" to force their values on me. Priceless! lol.gif
If by others forcing their values on you you mean the community which includes yourself contributing to the process of passing laws and enforcing them, then yes.
post #677 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No question was begged and I made myself very clear.

 

Yes you did...you made it clear that you're begging the question.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Oh, bugger off.

 

Bugger off yourself.

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 #678 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If by others forcing their values on you you mean the community which includes yourself contributing to the process of passing laws and enforcing them, then yes.

 

This would be a whole lot easier if you would just admit that you don't get 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 #679 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

This would be a whole lot easier if you would just admit that you don't get it.

I'm sure you'll just torture us with obtuseness, a more modern but still somewhat painful version of what your ancestors did, in hopes we tell you the lie you want to hear.

 

inquisition-wheel.jpg

File:Witch-scene4.JPG

File:Picard.jpg

 

“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 #680 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If by others forcing their values on you you mean the community which includes yourself contributing to the process of passing laws and enforcing them, then yes.

 

This would be a whole lot easier if you would just admit that you don't get it.

 

Oh, I get part of it. Being part of the process is not good enough for you, not free enough for you, so you want to dispose of the process altogether.

 

But the part I fail to understand is how someone so otherwise intelligent can lack the foresight to understand that without government, the vast majority of the people would be less free, since not everyone can be a lord in the feudal society that would result. Or maybe you do understand that, expect to be a lord yourself, and care **** all for the others.

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