I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Libertarians are hypocrites, because they claim their morality and rights are absolute, but then draw a line in the sand at reparations for the decendents of the wronged. "Oh, it would be too difficult to figure out who proffited from slavery/genocide/invasion/theft by government and who the decendents are and who were should divvy up the reparations, so we just won't do it."

It's also unconsitutional. In one of the articles it states that you can't hold the descendants of a person responsible for the crime of his or her ancestors.

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

Who ever said we thought the government was moral?

You want to put words in our mouths, don't complain when the favor is returned. But does that mean you think government is immoral? That puts you in a peculiar position given you're a communist.

Morality is besides the point. No society is moral.

Morality is never beside the point.

All have a foundation of theft and genocide and slavery. We commies simply say, we feel free to take the whole of society since you have no just claim anyway, as you stole it from others.

I stole "society"? Don't you think it wise to make sure your victims are guilty before stealing from them? Oh, and how are you any different then if you steal too?

Libertarians are hypocrites, because they claim their morality and rights are absolute, but then draw a line in the sand at reparations for the decendents of the wronged.

Unlike Theben, at least you try to support the accusation of hypocrisy. Now, why am I responsible for what your ancestor may have done? You believe that the sins of the father become the sins of the great grand children? Btw, I've participated in Israeli-Palestinian threads and I've said that land belongs to the people who owned the land in the 1940's and their descendents. So what does that say about your "proof"?

"Oh, it would be too difficult to figure out who proffited from slavery/genocide/invasion/theft by government and who the decendents are and who were should divvy up the reparations, so we just won't do it."

Difficult or not, the reason libertarians oppose reparations is because we don't believe the innocent should be punished for the crimes of the guilty. If you're going to accuse us of hypocrisy, don't put your fabricated arguments in our mouths and portray it as proof.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
It's also unconsitutional. In one of the articles it states that you can't hold the descendants of a person responsible for the crime of his or her ancestors.

True, but you can sue them for return of property. If my dad stole your dad's farm, and they both died, you can sue me to recover the farm. Same concept.

[Berzerker]

Oh, chegitz, if 1,000 years ago your ancestor enslaved mine, should you be forced to pay me? Since I'm Irish I stand to make a tidy sum off the the Brits.

[Kuciwalker]

True, but you can sue them for return of property. If my dad stole your dad's farm, and they both died, you can sue me to recover the farm. Same concept.

Yes, but after three or four generations? Nope, it won't happen. Plus, how can I return something as ephemeral as labor?

You know, how about we have every group of people pay every other group of people for the crimes they've committed against each other. That'll work out REAL well.

It is the insistance on still recognising race as an important factor in a person that allows racism to persist today.

[Berzerker]

If my dad stole your dad's farm, and they both died, you can sue me to recover the farm. Same concept.

No, it isn't the same concept. Reparations are about forcing people to pay for slavery regardless of whether or not they had ancestors involved in the practice.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The poor don't deserve any GOOD or SERVICE that they can't or won't pay for, the same as anyone else.

Having a minimal level of goods and services available to everyone increase prosperity and growth.

Well, if you are allowed to say that laissez faire systems will fail, even though we've never had one, then I'm allowed to say that true communist systems will also fail, even though we've never had one of those, either

Good, we agree on something, though I wouldn't call the two pet crackpot theories opposites either.

That's not necessarily true. Children with families who could afford it wouldn't have been working, but rather have been in schools - much better schools than the public crap we have today.

Why do you want to punish children for what they have no control over?

I'm concerned with freedom.

Freedom without choice is no freedom at all. Freedom is not the opposite of government. There is an optimum level of government for greatest freedom, and no freedom at all at the extremes.

And I don't care if a person who robs a grocery store was starving - he should STILL go to prison for a good long time.

Sadist.

That's why there should be no restrictions on the type of weapons I can arm myself with. That way, when the starving guy breaks into my house in the middle of the night for food, I can shoot his ass without worrying about the knife or Saturday Night Special he may or may not be carrying.

Murderer.

Private Police: you would find one who could argue various services provided by the police ... constant domestic violence calls ... are either un-needed or even detrimental.

Misogynistic sanctioner of abuse (or, in certain cases, Misandristic one).

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -

Ah yes, and you send a large chunk of your income to S Africa so the poor get justice? Oh, that's their problem? Yes it is, isn't it... Hmm...



There's a ******* left winger for ya, steal us blind to pay for all sorts of crap and then spit in our faces. No chegitz, it is because of people like DF because if we didn't exist, you a@@holes would have to pay for all that **** yourselves.



Gee, and where do "we" get the money for all those programs? Oh yeah, "taxes". Here's an idea, don't "tax" away our money and we'll have more to spend on the necessities of life. That's a left winger for ya, tax people into poverty and then give 'em back some of their money in the name of "compassion".



Those programs don't "allow" a working man to earn a living, his skills sold in the marketplace creates his wealth.



This natural tendency toward monopolies is mitigated by the marketplace, that's why some corporations seek to create government biases by bribing politicians.



A desire to learn creates education, not government schools. Technology and the market is what determines educational opportunities, not government schools. We have government schools and we see a surplus of people who are qualified to teach or run for Congress and not much else. But you didn't refute DF's assertion that we have no right to force others to pay for our education, you merely argued we should legalise stealing because you like the alleged result.



That's a great argument, if you don't let us steal your money now to educate our children, it will be stolen later by our children. Is that a contract? If so, can we sue the parents of children who commit crimes for breach of contract? Because we are being ripped off to pay for the government schools and by the products of those schools.

Bezerker, I think that is possibly one of the most compulsive arguments I've heard on Apolyton in a while-please run for local goverment in my state!

[David Floyd]

Having a minimal level of goods and services available to everyone increase prosperity and growth.

We're on different wavelengths. Your posts about "increasing prosperity and growth" do nothing to refute my points that having universal health care, education, whatever, is coercive and unfree.

Why do you want to punish children for what they have no control over?

Why do you want to punish ME for what *I* have no control over?

Freedom without choice is no freedom at all. Freedom is not the opposite of government. There is an optimum level of government for greatest freedom, and no freedom at all at the extremes.

Freedom is simply the lack of coercion. I know that you lefties like to equate freedom with money, but that just isn't the case. There is a difference between being FREE to do something and being able to AFFORD that same thing.

Sadist.

Why is it sadism to punish theft and breaking and entering?

Murderer.

How is defending yourself and your home murder? If someone breaks in, in the middle of the night, you don't know if he has a gun, or what his intentions are. But the fact is that he is on your property, without your permission, and has ALREADY demonstrated hostile intent (whether to kill you, rob you, or whatever). Protecting yourself isn't murder.

And if it turns out he was doing this because he was starving? It doesn't change a damn thing - dying is natural, and fear of dying doesn't justify stealing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a sad thread when I find myself agreeing more with che over government policy rather than the 'capitalists' . That's the problem with extreme libertarians... they turn off those who would be a moderate wing of their party, and I guess they like it that way (no power, no compromising, I guess ).

[David Floyd]

You can either be in favor of freedom, or you can be in favor of tyranny, but you can't be in favor of both at the same time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sure you can .

The problem with you extreme libertarians, it is either one way or the other, you can't see any of the shades of grey.

[David Floyd]

There are no shades of grey. Either my life is my own, or it is not. Either I am free, or I am the slave of "society".

[St Leo]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Freedom is simply the lack of coercion. I know that you lefties like to equate freedom with money, but that just isn't the case. There is a difference between being FREE to do something and being able to AFFORD that same thing.

I am not equating freedom with money. I am equating freedom with opportunities. You are the ones who equate opportunities with money, not I.

Fine, if you get to define freedom, I get to define liberty. Liberty is about being able to not hate your life. Liberty is about being able to contribute to the advancement of art and science. Liberty is about not burning out at thirty from overwork with nothing to show for it. Liberty is about everyone having leisure time to spend as they damn well please.

BTW, do I sound like the blond guy from the South Park movie right now?:P

[David Floyd]

I am not equating freedom with money. I am equating freedom with opportunities. You are the ones who equate opportunities with money, not I.

Yes, you are free to pursue any opportunity that you have, or that you can make for yourself, PROVIDED THAT you don't violate the rights of others, or close down certain opportunities for others. That is, your rights don't extend to violate those of others.

Fine, if you get to define freedom

I don't get to define freedom. In the English language, freedom means, first and foremost, the absence of coercion.

I get to define liberty.

You are certainly FREE to do so.

Liberty is about being able to not hate your life.

Liberty and self-hate are not related concepts. A man whose freedom is being constantly violated can love himself, while a man whose freedom is not being violated can hate himself. There are plenty of real world examples of both.

Liberty is about being able to contribute to the advancement of art and science.

Absolutely. Being able - in the sense that you are not restrained from doing so - to contribute to arts and sciences is certainly an aspect of freedom.

Liberty is about not burning out at thirty from overwork with nothing to show for it.

Actually burning out at 30 with nothing to show for it is probably an example of poor decision making, not a lack of liberty. And some people choose to make decisions that we would consider poor, but they are certainly free to do so.

Liberty is about everyone having leisure time to spend as they damn well please.

No, in this context, liberty is about being able to contract freely with others. If your contract states that you get 2 months off per year, then that is what you get, and if your contract states that you work 12 hour days, six days a week, with no paid vacation time, then that is what you get as well. You had the liberty to accept or reject either decision.

Your "definition" of liberty is idiotic and contradictory, although you are CERTAINLY *free* to say whatever you want.