Libertarianism.. Good or bad?

[Fat Lard]

Good, obviously. It worked for America until the fucking communist democrats ruined it. The neo-cons fucked it up too.


Libertarianism is a political philosophy or a family of related political philosophies based on support for individual liberty. Libertarians believe that allowing individuals to own, and be responsible for, their own property and their own bodies is a necessary aspect of liberty. Libertarians believe in limiting the power and ability of government to restrict liberty. While libertarian philosophy has deep roots in the historical philosophy and values of the United States of America, in modern times, freedom and recognition of rights of self-determination have become central issues throughout the world.


So out of this would come a class system WHICH IS OK. Everyone has the exact same opportunity for wealth and power as anyone else. Taxes would be lower and most everything would be privatized. Big government fucks shit up. Competition helps shit out. Any questions?

Libertarians believe that people are the rulers of their own lives and should be able to do just about anything they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else or anyone else's property. IE libertarians are generally against the war on drugs and the war on prostitution. They oppose government funded welfare and instead suggest charity.



Think about it. What gives someone the right to take away MY money so some low life can abuse welfare? It's more than that too. Taxes also pay for stupid bureaucrats who take their share before giving it to the people in need. I would MUCH rather donate $100 to meals on wheels than to a wasteful government.


Now onto the question. Do you think that libertarianism is a great idea?
If not, then why not? (If you pick not, you're a socialist faggot and you need to GTFO of America)




VOTE RON PAUL IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES


EDIT:If I knew this was going to become a decent thread I would have put some effort into it. This was basically a copy of the Communism.. Good or bad thread. But yeah... Continue I suppose.


Sythe encourages you all to listen to the free audio book of 'The Libertarian Manifesto' found here:
http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87

 

[Shredderbeam]

I would generally consider myself a Libertarian in that I frown on an overly-large government, and prefer less interference, but I don't see why social welfare programs are a bad idea.

 

[jaamal]

Social welfare is usually based on the persons or families income on paper, if someone is working under the table, then they can take advantage of social welfare and other things.

I have no problem with social welfare, if there is a better way to manage the way the money is distrubted.

 

[Buns and Cheeks]

YOUR so called money goes into the hospitals, the roads, the government built HOMES you live in.

Yeah I'm all for freedom and shit, but there needs to be some sort of higher form. I don't want my family, nor my friends, to be able to go to any store, and buy drugs.

Looking at what you posted, thats legal aint it? Sure that wouldn't hurt me PHYSICALLY. But emotionally that hurts all people close to that person. Society is fucked up right now, but what your talking about would never work.

IT would eventually fall, and become mass anarchy.

I guess I'm a socialist faggot for disagreeing for you. But atleast my opinion isnt so fucking biased by my parents.

 

Blunt but well stated. Go Ron Paul!

As you all probably know by my comments in the recent communism thread, I am a libertarian. Well, more specifically, anarcho-capitalist - which is the purest form of libertarianism. (More about that if you are interested.)

I encourage you all to listen to the free audio book of 'The Libertarian Manifesto' found here:
http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87

Murry Rothbard actually predicted that a shift in public attitude would occur around this time toward libertarianism. The book is FANTASTIC, and an absolute must-read for anyone interested in libertarianism and the business cycle.

All you budding libertarians: Good luck out there! Its a nasty statist world and we have much work to do in educating the masses.

... man this is exciting. I can't believe how quickly the libertarian movement is growing!

 

I don't want my family, nor my friends, to be able to go to any store, and buy drugs.

How is that any different to the current system?
At the moment your family and friends can go to any street corner and buy drugs. They just have a marginally higher chance of being shot at.

I guess I'm a socialist faggot for disagreeing for you. But atleast my opinion isnt so fucking biased by my parents.

Yes your opinion is - both by your parents and by the state. You sound like a typical left-leaning - straight off the production line - product of the US, UK, CA or AU public school system. I guess you believe the government should give people free handouts and steal money from successful corporations too?

 

[Shredderbeam]

I would be one of those people who has his doubts about any form of anarchy. I believe that people are corrupt, and that, given a chance, will not police themselves, but rather, do everything that they can to advance their own agenda.

 

I would be one of those people who has his doubts about any form of anarchy. I believe that people are corrupt, and that, given a chance, will not police themselves, but rather, do everything that they can to advance their own agenda.

Well clearly you are uninformed about anarcho-capitalism.

It is not anarchy in the sense of chaos, because there are laws, there is just no government to write new laws.

Overwhelmingly you already live in a state of perpetual anarchy. It is only the good will of the people around you that keep the system alive.

When you are being mugged on the sidewalk, does a cop show up and save the day? Most unlikely. Police are reactionary forces only. So, by your logic, the current system should have rampant crime everywhere, and nothing should work.

But this isn't the case. Why? Because 99% of people (in the first world) have a strong moral compass. This is why sites like ebay work. And why good suburbs need no surveillance.

Don't get me wrong. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are NOT utopians. The ideology is based on man how he currently acts and reacts, not on some 'man of the future' or hive mind, like marxism.


Anarcho-capitalism holds that all services currently provided by the government can be provided more fairly and more cheaply by nongovernmental organizations (be they non profit or for profit).

For example:
The court system could be provided by the free market. It would be very similar to the current insurance system. People would go out and purchase an agreement with a court, just as they do with an insurer today.

If someone laid a claim against this person, they would then proceed to trial in the defendant's court. If, at the end of the trial, either party rejected the verdict, the trial would recommence in another court, which was recognized as a legitimate court by some sort of industry body (say, an association of courts.) If the second verdict were the same as the first then the verdict would be final, regardless of the feelings of the either party.

If the verdicts were divergent (wildly different) the case may proceed to a high court (one, or one of a group, which is elected by the justice industry as being the fairest and best).

Now by this point you are probably saying: what if the courts went sour? Well what if the courts went sour in the current system, which they largely have? What then? You can do nothing about it in the current system. But at least in an anarcho-capitalist system there would be competition, new courts would spring up which provided fair verdicts, and people would shift court services to get the fairest trials.

You may also be saying: how would courts know what the law is if there was no government to write the law? In which case you clearly have never heard of common law. Overwhelmingly the job of a judge is to 'discover the law,' not create it. The law of the land already exists within the hearts and minds of the people who live on the land. It is just a matter of finding it and applying it without bias. This is historically the role of a judge, and remains largely the courts' only role in today's society.

I strongly suggest you listen to, or read, the libertarian manifesto above. It gives a comprehensive example framework of how a government-free society would likely function.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Well clearly you are uninformed about anarcho-capitalism.

It is not anarchy in the sense of chaos, because there are laws, there is just no government to write new laws.

I understand that concept.

Overwhelmingly you already live in a state of perpetual anarchy. It is only the good will of the people around you that keep the system alive.

When you are being mugged on the sidewalk, does a cop show up and save the day? Most unlikely. Police are reactionary forces only. So, by your logic, the current system should have rampant crime everywhere, and nothing should work.

It's the threat of government law enforcement that keeps people in line. If somebody knows that no SWAT team will stop them from robbing a bank, then they'll probably go and do it, if they so wish.

But this isn't the case. Why? Because 99% of people (in the first world) have a strong moral compass. This is why sites like ebay work. And why good suburbs need no surveillance.

99% of humans have a capacity for morality, but also a capacity for wrong. Humans are selfish, greedy, and opportunistic.

Anarcho-capitalism holds that all services currently provided by the government can be provided more fairly and more cheaply by nongovernmental organizations (be they non profit or for profit).

For example:
The court system could be provided by the free market. It would be very similar to the current insurance system. People would go out and purchase an agreement with a court, just as they do with an insurer today.

If someone laid a claim against this person, they would then proceed to trial in the defendant's court. If, at the end of the trial, either party rejected the verdict, the trial would recommence in another court, which was recognized as a legitimate court by some sort of industry body (say, an association of courts.) If the second verdict were the same as the first then the verdict would be final, regardless of the feelings of the either party.

If the verdicts were divergent (wildly different) the case may proceed to a high court (one, or one of a group, which is elected by the justice industry as being the fairest and best).

Now by this point you are probably saying: what if the courts went sour? Well what if the courts went sour in the current system, which they largely have? What then? You can do nothing about it in the current system. But at least in an anarcho-capitalist system there would be competition, new courts would spring up which provided fair verdicts, and people would shift court services to get the fairest trials.

You could have made that argument about Capitalism 150 years ago. You could have said that if a corporation provided unfair wages, then you could work somewhere else. However, what happened was that they worked together to stifle the masses. That could happen with a private court system.

Also, the courts of today have not gone sour. They are absolutely required to judge a case by what the law says. If they don't, severe penalties follow, that the government enforces.

You may also be saying: how would courts know what the law is if there was no government to write the law? In which case you clearly have never heard of common law. Overwhelmingly the job of a judge is to 'discover the law,' not create it. The law of the land already exists within the hearts and minds of the people who live on the land. It is just a matter of finding it and applying it without bias. This is historically the role of a judge, and remains largely the courts' only role in today's society.

This would be morality, which is extremely subjective. Surely the law cannot be based on what the majority of people want.

 

It's the threat of government law enforcement that keeps people in line. If somebody knows that no SWAT team will stop them from robbing a bank, then they'll probably go and do it, if they so wish.

I see, and private security is no deterrent? What about when the owner of the bank has a shotgun under the counter, and random people currently in the process of performing banking transactions are allowed to carry their protection with them. How willing would robbers be when they are likely to be shot at by citizen police? Furthermore, how would they run off with the money? No federally issued notes. They'd have to pinch the bank's own deposit slips, in which case the bank could cancel them. Either that or attempt to steal a vault full of gold and silver.

99% of humans have a capacity for morality, but also a capacity for wrong. Humans are selfish, greedy, and opportunistic.

No. 99% of people have a moral compass. In a free society where people are spread out, families form alliances and its not the individual against the world. We live in a sick society. Freedom has worked before and it will work again.

You could have made that argument about Capitalism 150 years ago. You could have said that if a corporation provided unfair wages, then you could work somewhere else. However, what happened was that they worked together to stifle the masses. That could happen with a private court system.

No one, except the old reactionary right, worked together to 'stifle the masses' - certainly this was not the aim of capitalism. During the European industrial revolution, the newly discovered entrepreneurial class followed a set of beliefs which encouraged the view that any action which increased profits was moral and just. This set of beliefs passed long ago with the various extreme forms of Social Darwinism. Capitalism is not inherently evil, as the lefties and statists would have you believe. Every other political system, in practice, is about a lower class serving an upper class. Only capitalism gives people equal opportunity and freedom to own property and control their own lives.

A famous quote:
"the virtue of capitalism is not that it provides more silk stockings for queens, but that it makes silk stockings affordable to the lower classes."

Also, the courts of today have not gone sour. They are absolutely required to judge a case by what the law says. If they don't, severe penalties follow, that the government enforces.

You are incredibly brainwashed if you do not believe the courts have gone bad. There exists a double standard in almost every country in the world today, where officials and rich businessmen are above the law. Who was sent to prison over the 9/11 attacks? No one. What about all the people who supposedly fucked up in the military? How could such a massive crime go unpunished? If a serial killer murdered 3000 people you'd want to see him locked up, right?

In the US it is unconstitutional to pay income tax. So some people, following the highest law, refuse to pay. The government SWAT teams their house. Can they sue the government? No, because the government owns the courts. Thats just one example of so many.

There are thousands of families who have their kids taken away from them, forced onto medication, or forced to go to public schools. The US government tortures and kills people behind closed doors. The families have no avenue to seek justice.

The supreme court deliberately misinterprets the US consitution, giving the US congress, and the executive branch, powers it should never have acquired. In your supposedly perfect and wonderful court system where do you turn to prevent the US government giving itself the right to walk into your home and take your gold, take your assets, take your children, and take your lives?

War is murder.
Conscription is slavery.
Taxation is theft.

And you have no avenue to pursue justice for any of these crimes.

This would be morality, which is extremely subjective. Surely the law cannot be based on what the majority of people want.

[/quote]

Well you are simply wrong. It is a historical and modern fact that the vast majority of the law is based on what most people believe is just. Why do you think court rooms have juries? Are you that insanely brainwashed that you think the government is a supreme-being with a rightful claim over your life? Over the life of your family, your township? Do you believe that if a dictator doesn't write it then it can't be a law?

 

[Shredderbeam]

I see, and private security is no deterrent? What about when the owner of the bank has a shotgun under the counter, and random people currently in the process of performing banking transactions are allowed to carry their protection with them. How willing would robbers be when they are likely to be shot at by citizen police? Furthermore, how would they run off with the money? No federally issued notes. They'd have to pinch the bank's own deposit slips, in which case the bank could cancel them. Either that or attempt to steal a vault full of gold and silver.

There's a difference between civilians with shotguns and a SWAT team with body armor, extremely powerful assault rifles, concussion grenades, etc.

No. 99% of people have a moral compass. In a free society where people are spread out, families form alliances and its not the individual against the world. We live in a sick society. Freedom has worked before and it will work again.

And people who are interested in power form alliances to subjugate the others.

No one, except the old reactionary right, worked together to 'stifle the masses' - certainly this was not the aim of capitalism. During the European industrial revolution, the newly discovered entrepreneurial class followed a set of beliefs which encouraged the view that any action which increased profits was moral and just. This set of beliefs passed long ago with the various extreme forms of Social Darwinism. Capitalism is not inherently evil, as the lefties and statists would have you believe. Every other political system, in practice, is about a lower class serving an upper class. Only capitalism gives people equal opportunity and freedom to own property and control their own lives.

Yes, but in any society where people are given free reign, what stops the richest from banding together to lower wages, destroy competition, etc.?

A famous quote:
"the virtue of capitalism is not that it provides more silk stockings for queens, but that it makes silk stockings affordable to the lower classes."

Which is why I support free markets in most situations.

You are incredibly brainwashed if you do not believe the courts have gone bad. There exists a double standard in almost every country in the world today, where officials and rich businessmen are above the law. Who was sent to prison over the 9/11 attacks? No one. What about all the people who supposedly fucked up in the military? How could such a massive crime go unpunished? If a serial killer murdered 3000 people you'd want to see him locked up, right?

Yes, that is true, but only because the rich and powerful have people to exploit the holes in the legal system.

All right, good point, there are corruptions in the government.

In the US it is unconstitutional to pay income tax. So some people, following the highest law, refuse to pay. The government SWAT teams their house. Can they sue the government? No, because the government owns the courts. Thats just one example of so many.

Well, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution granted Congress that power. I don't agree with it, but the reason the government cannot be sued is because the courts will not allow the cases to be tried, since they clearly violated the law. It's a valid reason.

There are thousands of families who have their kids taken away from them

Those unfit to be parents.

forced onto medication

Medication improves and saves lives.

or forced to go to public schools.

If the parents are incapable of providing an adequate alternative education.

The US government tortures and kills people behind closed doors.

Yes, something I think is shocking.

The supreme court deliberately misinterprets the US consitution, giving the US congress, and the executive branch, powers it should never have acquired. In your supposedly perfect and wonderful court system where do you turn to prevent the US government giving itself the right to walk into your home and take your gold, take your assets, take your children, and take your lives?

The executive branch gives itself powers, and I'm not aware of any extra powers the Congress has.

Nothing can stop them. If they are determined to destroy me, they can, and will suppress the story in the media.

War is murder.

In most cases, but sometimes, it is necessary. If the Soviet Union had adopted that attitude, Nazi Germany would not have fallen in 1945.

Conscription is slavery.

Yes, it is. An occasionally necessary evil.

Taxation is theft.

Yet without taxes, the government has no power. With no power, the darker side of human nature rules.

Well you are simply wrong. It is a historical and modern fact that the vast majority of the law is based on what most people believe is just. Why do you think court rooms have juries? Are you that insanely brainwashed that you think the government is a supreme-being with a rightful claim over your life? Over the life of your family, your township? Do you believe that if a dictator doesn't write it then it can't be a law?

But with the system you advocate, laws will change from location to location as each culture defines what is moral.

 

You really are a socialist then. You may be too far gone to convince.

To my knowledge the 16th Amendment was never lawfully passed. I am no expert on US law, but many people in the US constitutional movement are. People have gone to jail over this. Their defense was that the 16th amendment was never lawfully ratified. The court apparently threw this out on the counter-argument that the IRS's lawful ability to tax does not stem from the 16th amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.

This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" was falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913 by Secretary of State Philander Knox.

After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913), Bill Benson wrote his fact findings in The Law That Never Was, Vols. 1 & 2. He was able to unequivocally prove that the 16th Amendment was never Constitutionally, properly, or legally ratified. The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "in effect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.

- http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm

You should look it up and review the amount of controversy there is surrounding this issue, rather than blindly accept what you have been told by the media.

Those unfit to be parents.

Based on your opinion? Based on a doctor's opinion?
Here in Australia we have what is called the 'stolen generation'. The government forcefully took aboriginal kids, using this same justification, and treated them horribly. Now that whole generation is completely screwed up and everyone agrees how 'wrong' it was, but they fail to see that the same things are still being done today.

No one has the right to take your kids. NO ONE!
If you ever tried to take my kids I'd kill you with my bare hands. I don't care what your justification is.

'Study: Troubled homes better than foster care'

By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
Children whose families are investigated for abuse or neglect are likely to do better in life if they stay with their families than if they go into foster care, according to a pioneering study. The findings intensify a vigorous debate in child welfare: whether children are better served with their families or away from them.

Full story: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm

Medication improves and saves lives.

I sincerely hope you understand that medication and drugs are the same thing. A doctor who is paid 50 dollars every time he gets a patient onto an antidepressant is no different to a drug pusher on the side of the road. These drugs destroy lives. Its just another facet to the double standards of corrupt big government society.

If the parents are incapable of providing an adequate alternative education.

Parents are natually able and supposed to educate their children. The state is an invention, not a natural process like raising children. Under no circumstances should the state ever have the power to remove children from their families and force feed them tripe.

We all agree that Nazification of children is bad. So why is the current system not? Families need to be left alone to educate and raise their children in the best way they can. You have some bizarre complex which makes you think people dislike their kids. Overwhelmingly parents love their children, even if you are too stupid and too narrow minded to see that.

What gives you the right to take someone's children from them?
What if a group calling themselves "the child protection league" came into your house and felt that you were too stupid, too moronic, and too abusive to take care of your kids. What if they took your kids away and turned them into children of the state. How would you feel then?

The executive branch gives itself powers, and I'm not aware of any extra powers the Congress has.

The power to tax, spend and go to war without declaring war, to name a few.

In most cases, but sometimes, it is necessary. If the Soviet Union had adopted that attitude, Nazi Germany would not have fallen in 1945.

Clearly you have never heard of guerilla-warfare. By far the most effective and conservative form of national defense. Also the cheapest, and it doesn't require a standing army.

Yes, it is. An occasionally necessary evil.

Absolutely unnecessary, unjustified, illegal and immoral. The only reason the government would ever have to force people to join a war is if they weren't paying the soldiers enough. And why would that be? because they cant afford the war to begin with. Well maybe they shouldn't start wars then. That'd be a good idea.

Yet without taxes, the government has no power. With no power, the darker side of human nature rules.

I CANT BELIEVE I AM READING THIS!

The darker side of humanity IS government. Every chapter of human history has been about running away and conquering, or evading, some governmental or oppressive organization. Be it another country, a monarchy, an empire, or a church. All the evil, all the mass murder, all the mass starvation, all the bombing, all the gasing, in the world is all caused by criminal rackets we refer to as governments, churches, or empires.

Do you truly believe that freedom is the darker side of humanity? What about serfdom. Do you realize 400 years ago countries didn't even exist. If we were still living in that time we'd all be peasents on some lord's estate, living at subsistence level with no technology and no medical science.

And you call freedom 'the dark side of humanity.' Good grief.

But with the system you advocate, laws will change from location to location as each culture defines what is moral.

Yes and what is wrong with that? Who gave you the right to decide what laws everyone should follow. You make me sick.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You really are a socialist then. You may be too far gone to convince.

I'm not a socialist.

To my knowledge the 16th Amendment was never lawfully passed. I am no expert on US law, but many people in the US constitutional movement are. People have gone to jail over this. Their defense was that the 16th amendment was never lawfully ratified. The court apparently threw this out on the counter-argument that the IRS's lawful ability to tax does not stem from the 16th amendment.


- http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm

You should look it up and review the amount of controversy there is surrounding this issue, rather than blindly accept what you have been told by the media.

I'm aware of the controversy, actually. Meh, I'll look into it more.

Based on your opinion? Based on a doctor's opinion?
Here in Australia we have what is called the 'stolen generation'. The government forcefully took aboriginal kids, using this same justification, and treated them horribly. Now that whole generation is completely screwed up and everyone agrees how 'wrong' it was, but they fail to see that the same things are still being done today.

Based on who makes a lousy parent. Does the couple who pays no attention to their children, drinks their life away, and abuses them deserve to be allowed to raise them? I think not.

If they took the children, and did it wrong, that doesn't make it automatically an immoral act. They may have done it wrong. but I'm sure there's a better way to do it.

No one has the right to take your kids. NO ONE!

I disagree. If one cannot be a good parent, then one should not have children.

If you ever tried to take my kids I'd kill you with my bare hands. I don't care what your justification is.

You're right, parental instinct is certainly justification for murder, regardless of how you treat your children.

'Study: Troubled homes better than foster care'

Full story: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm

I'd agree with that. It must be very traumatizing to be torn away from your parents.

These drugs destroy lives.

I'd disagree. Antidepressants saved my life.

Parents are natually able and supposed to educate their children. The state is an invention, not a natural process like raising children. Under no circumstances should the state ever have the power to remove children from their families and force feed them tripe.

If the parents physically abuse the children, what then?

We all agree that Nazification of children is bad. So why is the current system not? Families need to be left alone to educate and raise their children in the best way they can.

When that happens, you have children who parrot the beliefs of their parents, including whatever idiotic religious beliefs might go along with that.

You have some bizarre complex which makes you think people dislike their kids. Overwhelmingly parents love their children, even if you are too stupid and too narrow minded to see that.

Yeah, I know, but some people just aren't cut out to be parents.

What gives you the right to take someone's children from them?
What if a group calling themselves "the child protection league" came into your house and felt that you were too stupid, too moronic, and too abusive to take care of your kids. What if they took your kids away and turned them into children of the state. How would you feel then?

Obviously, I would be heartbroken. I'd probably go mad with anger. However, without getting myself emotionally involved, I'd say that if I was a bad parent, then I shouldn't be raising my kids.

The power to tax, spend and go to war without declaring war, to name a few.

Yes, which I think is madness.

Clearly you have never heard of guerilla-warfare. By far the most effective and conservative form of national defense. Also the cheapest, and it doesn't require a standing army.

Guerrilla warfare can fail, miserably. These days, the standing military is so unbelievably powerful that even if an entire population rose up, they would quickly be subdued. The majority of people are stupid, afraid, and selfish. When a special operations strike force is gunning down guerrilla warriors with night vision and silenced rifles, people panic, and run. It requires training to be an effective warrior. You can't just have an RPG and an AK-47.

Absolutely unnecessary, unjustified, illegal and immoral. The only reason the government would ever have to force people to join a war is if they weren't paying the soldiers enough. And why would that be? because they cant afford the war to begin with. Well maybe they shouldn't start wars then. That'd be a good idea.

Some wars are necessary, and in some of them conscription is necessary! Again, if the Soviet Union had adopted such an attitude, Britain would have fallen, along with Africa! Then, Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. would have eventually gone to war, and who would have won? The Soviets, who had extremely outdated technology, or the vastly superior Germans, who only lost because they failed to supply their armies?

I CANT BELIEVE I AM READING THIS!

The darker side of humanity IS government. Every chapter of human history has been about running away and conquering, or evading, some governmental or oppressive organization. Be it another country, a monarchy, an empire, or a church. All the evil, all the mass murder, all the mass starvation, all the bombing, all the gasing, in the world is all caused by criminal rackets we refer to as governments, churches, or empires.

Not all. Sometimes, a person could see a chance for advancement by exploiting another, and if they knew they would not get caught, they would probably do it.

Do you truly believe that freedom is the darker side of humanity? What about serfdom. Do you realize 400 years ago countries didn't even exist. If we were still living in that time we'd all be peasents on some lord's estate, living at subsistence level with no technology and no medical science.

And you call freedom 'the dark side of humanity.' Good grief.

I'm not calling freedom the dark side of humanity. I know that humans are not all just and honorable, and when it comes down to it, a large percentage of them are cowardly, selfish fools!

Yes and what is wrong with that? Who gave you the right to decide what laws everyone should follow.

Then, 500 years from now, if the majority of the population decides that female circumcision is all right, would that be permissible?

You make me sick.

I don't dislike you. I try to keep personal feelings out of arguments. I feel that disagreeing with somebody shouldn't result in anger towards them. It's quite illogical.

 

Based on who makes a lousy parent. Does the couple who pays no attention to their children, drinks their life away, and abuses them deserve to be allowed to raise them? I think not.

You are entitled to think they are lousy parents but what gives you the authority or the moral justification to separate the child from the family? What gives you the power of superior judgment that you may step in and change what would otherwise be in the lives of people who have no done anything to you? Many of the great evils of the world have been justified using this argument. I suggest you rethink your place in the world.

If they took the children, and did it wrong, that doesn't make it automatically an immoral act. They may have done it wrong. but I'm sure there's a better way to do it.

'Taking' a child is always an immoral act. You have no right and no superior claim to someone's child. You also neglect to ask the child. It is a violation of the civil rights of the parent and child alike. There is no moral or ethical justification for your actions, because they are based solely on your beliefs, and are not performed in mutual agreement with the other humans concerned.

I disagree. If one cannot be a good parent, then one should not have children.

Again, what gives you the right to judge other people and act on those judgments? Are your beliefs somehow superior to theirs? What gives you the right to determine who has children and who does not?

Again: these people have not aggressed against you. You are punishing them for a passive act. You are the aggressor, you are the criminal in this situation.

I'd agree with that. It must be very traumatizing to be torn away from your parents.

Now you are engaging in doublethink. You both support the separation of children from their parents and agree that it is wrong.

I'd disagree. Antidepressants saved my life.

You are in the system now. Your pills are rotting away your brain. I suggest you do some research on antidepressants and consequent suicides.

If the parents physically abuse the children, what then?

Then nothing. Mind your own business. Its their family, their bloodline, their offspring, their heritage. They are not aggressing against you, so leave them alone.

What if a middle eastern family came into your home and looked at your parenting skills and decided that you were an abusive parent because you did not let your children read the koran or wear a head scarf. Do they automatically gain the right - the moral high-ground - to forcibly remove your children from your home, just because their beliefs do not agree with your beliefs?

As I said before: Mind your own business. Your actions are unjustified. Even if there is a wrong occurring in a household that does not automatically give you the right to correct it.

When that happens, you have children who parrot the beliefs of their parents, including whatever idiotic religious beliefs might go along with that.

Again you are touting the superiority of your own beliefs. You seem to think you have the RIGHT to tell people what they should think and believe. Humans have free will. If the child does not like what they have been taught then they will convert to another teaching later in life. You have no right to tell people what to believe in or how to raise their kids. In fact it is very disturbing that you assert you do have this right.

You assert that your beliefs are superior and correct, and that you have the right to force people to believe what you believe. This is a form of egomania.

Guerrilla warfare can fail, miserably. These days, the standing military is so unbelievably powerful that even if an entire population rose up, they would quickly be subdued. The majority of people are stupid, afraid, and selfish. When a special operations strike force is gunning down guerrilla warriors with night vision and silenced rifles, people panic, and run. It requires training to be an effective warrior. You can't just have an RPG and an AK-47.

Yeah, ok, and this is why Iraq and Afghanistan are unwinnable isn't it? Because guerrilla warfare is so 'easy to beat'. Oh please. Every time an army has ever tried to go up against the actual population of a country they have always failed miserably. The only way to win is to exterminate the entire population, and that is a false victory... all you win is land.

Even in the most horific cases of war against guerrilla armies, where agent orange, bioweapons and gasing, were used the invading armies STILL LOST in the end.

Some wars are necessary, and in some of them conscription is necessary!

Never justified, ever. When you talk about national conquest, you are simply talking about displacing one government in favor of another, by military force. So really the war is between two governments, two criminal gangs, not between two nations of people.

Would you feel it was justified if the gang on your block forced you to fight and die for them so that they could retain control of your suburb? No, of course not, how absurd.

Not all. Sometimes, a person could see a chance for advancement by exploiting another, and if they knew they would not get caught, they would probably do it.

You might. People you know might. But then again your brain chemistry is completely fucked up by the pills they have you popping.

Decent people who love their families and love their country have a moral compass. If there were too many people like you in one area the good people would move away and leave you criminals to your moral-less subsistence. You would be left to steal from each other, and any attempt to steal from wealthy prosperous townships would see you shot by the inhabitance. You would quickly discover that you reap what you sow when you are no longer protected by sympathetic leftist laws.

Then, 500 years from now, if the majority of the population decides that female circumcision is all right, would that be permissible?

Again, you are focusing on your beliefs and your interpretation of the situation, rather than on your own right to do anything about it. Just because what you perceive has being wrong is occurring does not give you the right to correct it. An action is only virtuous when it is performed in mutual agreement. All actions which affect others, without their consent, are criminal.

In fact, there are probably tribes in Brazil this very moment who perform female circumcision. Obviously you disagree with them, but that does not give you the right to march into their tribe and force them to abide by your beliefs, does it? How narrow minded and intolerant you are... Your ideology does not allow you to coexist peacefully with other people and other beliefs.

I don't dislike you. I try to keep personal feelings out of arguments. I feel that disagreeing with somebody shouldn't result in anger towards them. It's quite illogical.

Regardless, I find your point of view both disturbing and revolting.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You are entitled to think they are lousy parents but what gives you the authority or the moral justification to separate the child from the family? What gives you the power of superior judgment that you may step in and change what would otherwise be in the lives of people who have no done anything to you? Many of the great evils of the world have been justified using this argument. I suggest you rethink your place in the world.

What gives "me" the authority to do that is concern for the welfare of the child.

'Taking' a child is always an immoral act. You have no right and no superior claim to someone's child. You also neglect to ask the child. It is a violation of the civil rights of the parent and child alike. There is no moral or ethical justification for your actions, because they are based solely on your beliefs, and are not performed in mutual agreement with the other humans concerned.

If the parent abuses the child, then the parent has no right to be a parent.

Again, what gives you the right to judge other people and act on those judgments? Are your beliefs somehow superior to theirs? What gives you the right to determine who has children and who does not?

Yes, they are. Those who would abuse their children, I consider inferior.

Again: these people have not aggressed against you. You are punishing them for a passive act. You are the aggressor, you are the criminal in this situation.

If they have displayed aggression against somebody else, should I not care? If a child on the other side of the world is raped by her father, should I not be outraged?

Now you are engaging in doublethink. You both support the separation of children from their parents and agree that it is wrong.

No, I just agree that it's traumatizing.

You are in the system now. Your pills are rotting away your brain. I suggest you do some research on antidepressants and consequent suicides.

They're actually not rotting my brain. They correct an overabundance of a certain chemical chemical.

Consequent suicides...well, I know that I was suicidal before I began taking them, and that after a few weeks, I was feeling much better, with much more stable moods, etc. Overall, I'd consider it to be a positive experience.

Then nothing. Mind your own business. Its their family, their bloodline, their offspring, their heritage. They are not aggressing against you, so leave them alone.

Blood doesn't matter. Your family doesn't matter. They're only other bipedal apes that you are genetically related to. We're all humans, and I have a right to be concerned if children are being physically abused. I'd almost go so far as to say that they're supposed to be free from that, and that we should guarantee that freedom.

What if a middle eastern family came into your home and looked at your parenting skills and decided that you were an abusive parent because you did not let your children read the koran or wear a head scarf. Do they automatically gain the right - the moral high-ground - to forcibly remove your children from your home, just because their beliefs do not agree with your beliefs?

No, I feel that there is a standard of morals which all people can live by. Everybody should be free from harm, and free to do what they want, as long as they don't harm anybody else. I also feel that children should not have their beliefs decided for them, but should be exposed to all sides of an issue so that they could decide for themselves when they grow up.

As I said before: Mind your own business. Your actions are unjustified. Even if there is a wrong occurring in a household that does not automatically give you the right to correct it.

I think it does.

Again you are touting the superiority of your own beliefs. You seem to think you have the RIGHT to tell people what they should think and believe. Humans have free will. If the child does not like what they have been taught then they will convert to another teaching later in life. You have no right to tell people what to believe in or how to raise their kids. In fact it is very disturbing that you assert you do have this right.

No, I feel that they shouldn't be force-fed only one side of things. They should be exposed to all sides, then make whatever decision they want.

Yeah, ok, and this is why Iraq and Afghanistan are unwinnable isn't it? Because guerrilla warfare is so 'easy to beat'. Oh please. Every time an army has ever tried to go up against the actual population of a country they have always failed miserably. The only way to win is to exterminate the entire population, and that is a false victory... all you win is land.

Unfortunately for the Armed Forces, there are rules of war. If the U.S. was given free reign to win the war, it would, and easily.

Even in the most horific cases of war against guerrilla armies, where agent orange, bioweapons and gasing, were used the invading armies STILL LOST in the end.

I don't think that would have happened in WWII.

Never justified, ever. When you talk about national conquest, you are simply talking about displacing one government in favor of another, by military force. So really the war is between two governments, two criminal gangs, not between two nations of people.

Would you feel it was justified if the gang on your block forced you to fight and die for them so that they could retain control of your suburb? No, of course not, how absurd.

I am not talking of gangs, I am talking of an aggressive nations actively seeking to conquer, destroy, and make things worse.

You might. People you know might. But then again your brain chemistry is completely fucked up by the pills they have you popping.

Not really. An imbalance has merely been corrected.

Decent people who love their families and love their country have a moral compass. If there were too many people like you in one area the good people would move away and leave you criminals to your moral-less subsistence. You would be left to steal from each other, and any attempt to steal from wealthy prosperous townships would see you shot by the inhabitance. You would quickly discover that you reap what you sow when you are no longer protected by sympathetic leftist laws.

Lol. Do you suggest then that most people are moral and just, and would not commit crimes for personal gain?

Again, you are focusing on your beliefs and your interpretation of the situation, rather than on your own right to do anything about it. Just because what you perceive has being wrong is occurring does not give you the right to correct it. An action is only virtuous when it is performed in mutual agreement. All actions which affect others, without their consent, are criminal.

In fact, there are probably tribes in Brazil this very moment who perform female circumcision. Obviously you disagree with them, but that does not give you the right to march into their tribe and force them to abide by your beliefs, does it? How narrow minded and intolerant you are... Your ideology does not allow you to coexist peacefully with other people and other beliefs.

"You can swing your arm back and forth all you like. I only have a problem when it hits my nose."

I feel that stepping upon the rights of others is impermissible. So, yes, I would not have a problem with interfering with those tribes.

Regardless, I find your point of view both disturbing and revolting.

Nothing to get so upset about.

 

[EL17E]

Everyone can believe in what they think and learn... Parents should allow their children to make their own explorations and observations about culture other than them forcing their children to believe in every damn' thing that they do.

 

Shredderbeam, you have lost this debate.

In your most recent post you admitted that you believe your own beliefs to be superior to others and that you believe you have the right to go into other people's homes and impose your beliefs on them. You are an intolerant bigot, incapable of coexisting with anyone that does not share your beliefs. You are no different from the Nazis, the fundamentalist Muslims, or the roman catholic church.

You must concede defeat because you can never be at peace with the world. Your ideology prevents you from accepting other people, other customs, and other cultures, without asserting yourself on them and imposing your beliefs on them, and, ultimately, changing them to suit yourself.

You would happily burn books, steal children, and imprison innocent people, because you simply do not agree with the way other people wish to passively live their lives.

You have no humanity.

 

[EL17E]

Shredderbeam, you have lost this debate.

In your most recent post you admitted that you believe your own beliefs to be superior to others and that you believe you have the right to go into other people's homes and impose your beliefs on them. You are an intolerant bigot, incapable of coexisting with anyone that does not share your beliefs. You are no different from the Nazis, the fundamentalist Muslims, or the roman catholic church.

You must concede defeat because you can never be at peace with the world. Your ideology prevents you from accepting other people, other customs, and other cultures, without asserting yourself on them and imposing your beliefs on them, and, ultimately, changing them to suit yourself.

You would happily burn books, steal children, and imprison innocent people, because you simply do not agree with the way other people wish to passively live their lives.

You have no humanity.

Wait what was that about the fundamentalist Muslims...?

 

[what?]

Necessitarianism lawl

 

[Fat Lard]

Alright, I'm not going to down the list of everything said above but I'll cover a few of them. By the way, I feel that America was set up to work and originally had the perfect balance of government and private business.


Some wars ARE just, but a certain procedure needs to be followed to make sure this is the case. If a country is being oppressed and the general public feels it necessary to aid said country, aid should be given. I generally oppose any foreign conflict but there are certainly cases where war is necessary. At this moment, we don't need American troops in any other country. We need them in America.


I believe that we do, in fact, have the right to intervene if someone is harming an individual. This is the case with Shredder's scenario. If you abuse your children you are causing harm to an individual. Moreover, it's a child who may or may not posses the ability or intelligence to handle the situation. I don't care how you raise your kids to be perfectly honest, but if they are harmed and cannot stand up for themselves, you are creating conflict.


To sythe: You seem quite hypocritical. You call Shredder intolerant yet you seem to be offended that he chooses to ingest something that he feels helps him. Why do you care? He didn't hurt anyone. Even if he's a bigot like you seem to think, it's his right to do so. Granted, you also have the right to disagree with him but don't forget he has a right to liberty (this includes speech) too.


On the topic of human morality - Most people do have at least some sort of immorality, but if laws were set against conflict (no theft, murder, rape, etc) a high percentage of those people would be turned off to the crime. This being said, I feel that the prison system should rehabilitate the individual. If they committed the crime in the first place, they obviously aren't concerned with the "punishment". Prisons shouldn't be just a holding area and open forum for criminals to discuss their crimes. I don't know exactly how this should be done, but it prisons in America need an overhaul.


On forced military servitude(the draft) - No one should be forced into war, ever. I am fully convinced that if a conflict occurred on our soil and put America in a position where we had to defend ourselves, people would volunteer. Look at the numbers of military troops America has now WITHOUT a real threat to our well-being. I know of many males who would fight for their land and liberty if needed WITHOUT being forced to do it.

Yes, but in any society where people are given free reign, what stops the richest from banding together to lower wages, destroy competition, etc.?

You need to give us middle class some credit. We're not stupid. We form private unions and simply won't work under certain conditions. I personally think working unions are disgusting, but if I was making shit money under horrid conditions I would definitely consider organizing/joining one.

I guess I'm a socialist faggot for disagreeing for you. But atleast my opinion isnt so fucking biased by my parents.

My parents are far from libertarian. They're not quite far enough to the left to call themselves Democrats, but they certainly feel that we cannot possibly function without government regulation.


Private courts - I'm not opposed to the idea but public courts can work just fine. It would be a pain in the ass to just have private courts replace the public court system. If both the defendant the the prosecutor liked the private court and agreed on using it I don't see why it would be a bad idea. The problems arise when the defendant thinks Generic Court X in unfair for some reason but the prosecutor won't use Generic Court Y because it has a reputation of favoring the defendants. A public system is pretty neutral and keeps the defendant and prosecutor on a level playing field which is important when dealing with legal issues.


Too lazy to proof read, probably some errors in there.