I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are no shades of grey.

And this is why libertarians will never gain any power in the world.

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

La Resistance Lives On!

[Berzerker]

Thx Vesayen, but I fear the majority is addicted to legalised stealing. I shouldn't be too harsh though, Ben Franklin understood the desire for security was so strong it could overcome the desire for freedom. But he did warn we would have neither if we went down that path and he was right... It reminds me of, perhaps the proverbial, convict who is released from prison only to run out and commit another crime. When asked why, he said prison afforded him security and his freedom did not.

St Leo -

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

If utility is your goal, why do you reject out of hand the negative consequences of a welfare state? Would you say the current welfare state in the US qualifies as "minimal" or in excess of this level? How do you explain out-of-wedlock birthrates? That, it appears, is the greatest determinant of poverty. So why has this rate climbed as the welfare state has grown? Paying people to be irresponsible will only get you more irresponsible behavior...

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by 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.

No it dosent, it just makes the poor dependant on it.

Im sure the VAST majority of welfare recipients use that money for only a short time and climb out of the hole, right?

Originally posted by Berzerker
Thx Vesayen, but I fear the majority is addicted to legalised stealing. I shouldn't be too harsh though, Ben Franklin understood the desire for security was so strong it could overcome the desire for freedom. But he did warn we would have neither if we went down that path and he was right... It reminds me of, perhaps the proverbial, convict who is released from prison only to run out and commit another crime. When asked why, he said prison afforded him security and his freedom did not.

Untill rescently I was in that group I would of called you a heartless bastard for not wanting social programs... then I realized, why the hell am I paying a hedonistic amount of taxes when the money isnt solving the problems the money is being thrown at :? We cant be worse off then we are now for those problems, but we can be more free.

And I am serious, run for office!



I'd also like to point out this is the most one sided political beat down I think I've seen on Apolyton in some time, Go freedom train go!

[Berzerker]

It's a sad thread when I find myself agreeing more with che over government policy rather than the 'capitalists' .

I've said before you're a liberal.

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 ).

That's the problem with "moderate libertarians"... they turn off those who would be the true wing of their party, and I guess they like it that way (power to compromise away the freedom of others I guess.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've said before you're a liberal.

You and Floyd would be the only ones so far .

That's the problem with "moderate libertarians"... they turn off those who would be the true wing of their party, and I guess they like it that way

Power is much preferable than a 100% 'trueness' of ideology. Better to sacrifice some ideology for a lot more power.

[David Floyd]

Power is much preferable than 'trueness' of ideology.

I'd rather be moral and powerless, than immoral and powerful

[St Leo]

Originally posted by 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".

"Free" is a word that makes no sense outside the context of "society". You are not an electron. There is no innate physical freedom that you can achieve.

Democratic, tax-funded government is our only set of checks-and-balances against the godfathers, tyrants, kings, patriarchs, bishops, chiefs, gang leaders, and just plain bullies. It's the only known solution to that since the problem was imposed to us on agriculture.

If you want to have a long-term libertarian society, you are going to have to have everyone on earth abandon agriculture. Otherwise, any slate that you wipe clean will immediately be defaced and defecated upon by opportunists, scumbags, and just general *******s who will immediately set up a myriad of disgusting hereditary social hierarchies and supplant the libertarian clean slate with feudalisms, oligarchies, dictatorships, and autocracies.

And, no, there is no bloody way that six billion people can survive and prosper following a nomadic lifestyle on this planet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd rather be moral and powerless, than immoral and powerful

Wuss .

"Free" is a word that makes no sense outside the context of "society".

St. Leo does speak the truth. Society is what defines ideals such as free and equal.

[Berzerker]

You and Floyd would be the only ones so far .

Umm...you just said it yourself, you agree with a communist more than the libertarians.

Power is much preferable than a 100% 'trueness' of ideology. Better to sacrifice some ideology for a lot more power.

DF dealt that one a fatal blow.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you agree with a communist more than the libertarians.

And being a right winger, that shows how extreme you two are .

DF dealt that one a fatal blow.

If the fatal blow is being powerless and 'moral' then so be it. I don't consider that a fatal blow. And his black/white thinking comes out again... you can ONLY be moral and powerless or immoral and powerful to Floyd, you can't be a little immoral with a little power or a little immoral with a lot of power, etc.

Being 'moral' matters little without any power in order to make others as 'moral' as you. Wow... you are 'moral' in a sea of yourself. Big deal .

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by 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".

Very well said.

Originally posted by 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.

You are defining freedom as the ability to have a "nice" life where you get the things you want. That isnt freedom. Freedom is the ability to do whatever the hell you want providing you dont infringe on the rights of another(best brief defenition I can think of). If your life isnt "nice" because you made bad choices, your still free, you just made bad choices.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

There are no shades of grey.

And this is why libertarians will never gain any power in the world.

If you are TRULY right, there is no compromise-infact to do so would be wrong, as it would admit there is some fault when there is none. You cant compromise truth. Liberty sounds like a good idea to me, what do you think?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you are TRULY right, there is no compromise-infact to do so would be wrong, as it would admit there is some fault when there is none. You cant compromise truth.

NO ONE is truly right. And there is no one 'truth'. There are different versions of truth and right depending on who is telling the story. I'm not omniscient, so how can I be confident I'm 100% right? I'm sure a lot of people throughout history who disagree with you (the Catholic Church, Dicatators, etc.) believed they were truely right.

[Berzerker]

St Leo -

"Free" is a word that makes no sense outside the context of "society". You are not an electron. There is no innate physical freedom that you can achieve.

"Free" makes sense outside of society too since it requires the absence of coercion or constraint from others. If there are no others, you are by definition, free.

Democratic, tax-funded government is our only set of checks-and-balances against the godfathers, tyrants, kings, patriarchs, bishops, chiefs, gang leaders, and just plain bullies. It's the only known solution to that since the problem was imposed to us on agriculture.

Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority? Slaves understood that concept very well...

If you want to have a long-term libertarian society, you are going to have to have everyone on earth abandon agriculture.

Really? Why?

Otherwise, any slate that you wipe clean will immediately be defaced and defecated upon by opportunists, scumbags, and just general *******s who will immediately set up a myriad of disgusting hereditary social hierarchies and supplant the libertarian clean slate with feudalisms, oligarchies, dictatorships, and autocracies.

If we are to have a libertarian system, enforcing that system against would-be oppressors doesn't violate libertarianism. Democratic systems will defend themselves too you know, all systems will try to prevent abolition...

And, no, there is no bloody way that six billion people can survive and prosper following a nomadic lifestyle on this planet.

Gee, a libertarian government = a nomadic lifestyle now? Hey Ramo, did you hear that? He's an anarchist Leo so would we be living in caves clashing stones against each other for cutting tools under his ideology?

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If you are TRULY right, there is no compromise-infact to do so would be wrong, as it would admit there is some fault when there is none. You cant compromise truth.

NO ONE is truly right. And there is no one 'truth'. There are different versions of truth and right depending on who is telling the story. I'm not omniscient, so how can I be confident I'm 100% right? I'm sure a lot of people throughout history who disagree with you (the Catholic Church, Dicatators, etc.) believed they were truely right.

I love how people claim there is no truth because they cant disproove someone elses belief, or proove their own. There is absolute truth. Absolute truth is the current truth untill new evidence comes around to the contrary.

It's simple really, they were wrong, were not

Even if every person in history up until me said they were right and were actually wrong, that does not logically mean that I am wrong.

To claim the beliefs of past individuals means that I am wrong is a non sequitor(a total logical disconect)-there is no correlation.



Does a human being have the right to dominate another for any reason? No-therefore the idea of liberty is the correct one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I love how people claim there is no truth because they cant disproove someone elses belief, or proove their own.

I haven't seen anyone on this forum or in history prove their truth is 100% accurate. It is always colored by their biases and what they want the truth to be. Just read some the Reagan debates here.

Absolute truth is the current truth untill new evidence comes around to the contrary.

It's simple really, they were wrong, were not

So whoever is in power at this moment decides what the absolute truth is? Wow... I may believe the might makes right, but even I don't go THAT far. What immense power we modern people have. We can change truth by using 'new evidence'!

Even if every person in history up until me said they were right and were actually wrong, that does not logically mean that I am wrong.

How do you know they were wrong? It also does not mean you are right if they were all wrong. You have to prove to me that you are 100% correct and to date no one has come close in doing so.

Who says the Catholic Church in the 1500s wasn't correct? If there is a God (unprovable, of course) and his son gave the keys of heaven to the Bishop of Rome, then perhaps they were the ones who had the 'absolute truth' (as they beleived).

Does a human being have the right to dominate another for any reason? No

Why are you so quick to answer no? What is your justification for saying no? What is your evidence? You merely stated a question and then a one word answer. Why is it so self-evident to you?