Everyone is a libertarian

Life is a game - murder, theft, rape, and slavery may be considered immoral but they're just part of the gameplay. But most people respect morality because it is the nice way to go about things.

 

There is no winner, it is meerly a struggle for survival with no logic behind it.

 

I wouldn't call life a game, I would call it a struggle though because there's obstacles to overcome, choices to be made, some harder than others. I wouldn't say it's a game because in the end, what do you win? Death?

 

It's selectiveness in recognising the rights of the citizens, but not the rights of the state when they are achieved in the exact same fashion.

It can. You can ask for your rights off your fellow citizens. The state gets it's right to exist off other nations. You only have rights as long as they are recognised by others. The government only has rights as long as they are recognised by other governments. The UN I believe requires every nation to be recognised by 4 notable nations before it is formally declared sovereign.

Social Contract Theory. By maintaining citizenship in a country, you agree to abide by the laws of said country. There is no signed contract per se. It's like if you are a guest in my house and I don't like smoking, if you smoke in my house, there are consequences (I could eject you). That is a form of social contract: come to my house, drink my bear, eat my food... but don't smoke.

 

The appeal of libertarian capitalism is that it supposedly gives effect to the Kantian prohibition against using persons as a means to the ends of others.

Holders of large amounts of property have great power to dictate the terms upon which others work for them and therefore the power to "force" others to be resources for them.

If you only reject physical aggression, then you sanctify the power over others that large-scale property ownership grants.

Not everybody thinks freedom is an absence of physical aggression, so not everybody is a libertarian.

 

I've debated many times the differences between 'wrong' and 'socially unacceptable', fixating my very own opinion into the matter.

Such blasphemy of knowledge! You're slipping, Sythe.

 

So, that means MOST Religions are libertarian?

 

That depends on what you define 'most'. If by 'most' religions you mean the most popular Religions, such as Christianity and Islam, that promote needless slaughtering of innocent people and animals for insane reasons, then no, most religions aren't libertarian.

 

Two central libertarian concepts can be stated thus:

Property rights derive from a right to liberty.
Property ownership is morally acceptable regardless of the extent of holdings.

---

A person who owns a large amount of property could have considerable ability to dictate the conditions of other people's lives and work - reducing their liberty.

If property rights derive from a right to liberty, and if accumulation of property can reduce the liberty of others, then the right to liberty must demand some violation of the right to property.

The concepts at the top are therefore inconsistent.

 

I'm pretty sure your using the false dichotomy fallacy- presenting the two extremes as the only option.

I know it's such a petty point in your argument, but I'm just pointing it out.

 

We are all libertarians, otherwise you wouldn't be able to believe what you choose to believe... Government should be by the consent of the people; it should be the people - for the purpose of protecting life liberty and property - but not to the extent that one is entitled to property, just so long as it is not stolen.

Milton Friedman, Hayek, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson (cept for public education), Glenn Beck FTW!

 

Glenn Beck is a neoconservative hack designed to hijack the Libertarian philosophy and shoot it off into the realm of Democrat - Republican irrelevance.

 

rather than namecalling, how about saying how you disagree? And i forgot to mention Adam Smith

 

one of these is not like the others. guess who!