Everyone is a libertarian

[Guineapigcal]

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.

 

Life is a game.

So life is "a contest with rules to determine a winner"?

Or did you have a different definition of the word game to support this statement?

 

[Guineapigcal]

So life is "a contest with rules to determine a winner"?

Or did you have a different definition of the word game to support this statement?

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

 

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

Well then how can you call it a game?

In what dictionary is a game defined as "a struggle with no logic behind it"?

 

[Bring Me The Horizon]

Well then how can you call it a game?

In what dictionary is a game defined as "a struggle 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?

 

[TheRavenKing]

In what way?

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.

Can you prove to me that a state exists, and that it can ask for its rights?

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.

Firstly would you agree that taxation is theft if taxation is not part of a legal contract? Secondly, can you show me a copy of this alleged legal contract, with my signature on it?

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 Fat Controller]

You all already believe that murder, theft, rape, and slavery are wrong. You're all libertarians already. Forget all the nonsense arguments. Just apply the values you already hold to your life and to your beliefs. That's all you need to do. Just be honest, just be consistent.

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.

 

[Arya]

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.

 

[Brendan]

So, that means MOST Religions are libertarian?

 

[Tgump]

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.

 

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.

99.999% likely that you still believe theft is wrong. Maybe I am wrong, maybe you are sitting in a den of stolen items, on stolen land, using a stolen computer. But I doubt it.

So you still believe theft is wrong. You are just not consistent in applying this moral value. And I doubt it is out of any intellectual or logical concern that you don't apply it. It's more likely that your father was one of these "my roof, my rules" type of people and your support of mutualism is born out of a knee jerk reaction to an abusive past.

Frankly I'm sick of debating with mutualists. When you can get over your religiously imprinted fear of land monopolies you can reply with a rational counter-argument: Please explain the exact mechanism by which the situation emerges and why the situation is morally unacceptable when you reply.

This thread by an ex-mutualist might help you:
http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/forums/p/24349/188850.aspx#188850

 

So, that means MOST Religions are libertarian?

In the basics yes.

Libertarianism is a very basic set of premises.

-> Theft, rape and murder are wrong.

Most religions teach these values, although they do not apply them consistently.

The point of this thread was to illustrate that you all already support these premises. You're just inconsistent in their application to your life and your beliefs. You should either apply them consistently or abandon them.

 

[The Fat Controller]

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.

 

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.

Well I think that's great. You should run out and start taking property from people whom you deem own too much property. Why are you debating with me? You clearly believe in theft on arbitrary measures of "too much wealth". So just go do it, and see how it makes you feel.

Mutualism is a religion. Evil super-daddy landlord pops out of nowhere, violates the price mechanism and magically buys all the property in the world. You have no mechanism nor any null hypothesis for this. Your entire argument is based on an unfalsifiable religiously imprinted fear of bad parenting. Mutualism is the knee jerk reaction to "my roof my rules".

DO NOT BRING THIS TRIPE TO AN ETHICAL DEBATE.

Go try your ethical theory in the real world on yourself. Take your own medicine. Then come back and tell us how great it is.

 

[distracted]

In the basics yes.

Libertarianism is a very basic set of premises.

-> Theft, rape and murder are wrong.

Most religions teach these values, although they do not apply them consistently.

The point of this thread was to illustrate that you all already support these premises. You're just inconsistent in their application to your life and your beliefs. You should either apply them consistently or abandon them.

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.

 

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

What are the other options? Are you going to hold an ethical theory then not follow it? What then would be the purpose of ethics?

 

[Dont Tread On Me]

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!

 

[Tgump]

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.

 

[Dont Tread On Me]

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

 

[DropKick Murphys]

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

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