My aunts and uncles want censorship of the media. I think the most ignorant people on a political basis are the religious ones. Catholicism and Christianity have the most ignorant followers ever. I have not met any one of the sort who isn't closed minded, and indocterinates their kids to be some "goody-two-shoes". Established Religions seem to always use people's beliefs as an excuse to regulate them. My cousin goes to a private catholic college, which has RA's(Residental Assistants), who police the dorm rooms and stick their nose in your lives to make sure you aren't listening to "violent" music or watching violent movies. They regulate your music, video games, and TV to keep you "pure". Nobody proposing this is capable of backing up their bullshit, or giving legit reasons on why violent media is damaging to your health. It seems religious families who indocterinate their kids on morals and the Bible discourage them from having individual freedom. The end result is that the kid is a lot less open-minded and intelligent.
Not to mention there's Religious fundamentalists and anti-gays.
Additionally, I know people who hate Business' because they don't think they give enough back to society, screw us over for profit, owe us a job, and are greedy.
People hate how much money Business' make and that its to "our expense" that they even favor a cap on CEO Salaries now.
nirgrahamUK: Do you condone the use of violence in the context of debate? Pedantism cuts both ways.
Do you condone the use of violence in the context of debate?
Pedantism cuts both ways.
If you had understood my criticism to the original idea, you would have realized that both the original idea and the question above suffer an identical, fatal defect, a failure to differentiate between what libertarians consider to be legitimate or moral violence, any defense against any unprovoked, physical attack, and what libertarians consider to be illegitimate or immoral violence, any unprovoked, physical attack.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan: nirgrahamUK: Do you condone the use of violence in the context of debate? Pedantism cuts both ways. If you had understood my criticism to the original idea, you would have realized that both the original idea and the question above suffer an identical, fatal defect, a failure to differentiate between what libertarians consider to be legitimate or moral violence, any defense against any unprovoked, physical attack, and what libertarians consider to be illegitimate or immoral violence, any unprovoked, physical attack.
I think that he originally just meant that he refused to associate with anyone who would use violence against another who wasn't directly infringing upon thier rights.... Such all statists indefinatly propose.
Democracy for Breakfast:I think the most ignorant people on a political basis are the religious ones. Catholicism and Christianity have the most ignorant followers ever.
Snowflake: Democracy for Breakfast:I think the most ignorant people on a political basis are the religious ones. Catholicism and Christianity have the most ignorant followers ever. Actually this makes everything really easy, because god didn't put us here to be forced to do the right thing, we're supposed to chose it on our own.
That's what I've always followed. If there is no free will and religion is compulsive, what is the point of judgement after death? What would be the point of heaven or hell?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Snowflake: Scott F:He's older than me and he said something which basically came across as your younger than me and naive I'm older so more knowledgeable.I'm not too worried though because he said I should tone my ideas down because then people would listen to them more. Tell him to voice his philosophies on this forum... we'll tear him a new one
Scott F:He's older than me and he said something which basically came across as your younger than me and naive I'm older so more knowledgeable.I'm not too worried though because he said I should tone my ideas down because then people would listen to them more.
I'd love to but he's so close minded I doubt he'd have the guts .plus he doesn't have a computer at home so he has to go on at the library.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Scott F:I had a depressing experience the other day/ After trying to talk to my mildly lefty(he says he agrees with some of socialism but admits equality couldn't work except income equality and opposes revolution) friend about libertarianism for at least a couple of weeks , I'm having to admit defeat. He's not willing to be open to different ideas - which is what he accuses me of! I sent him libertarian info and he never even looked at it and told me he didn't want to. He 's strongly opposed to the idea of legalising drugs and prostitution.He believes that all prostitutes are exploited.He seems to think that I believe in no laws at all which I continually tell him I do not .Oh and he thinks allowing people to own guns is crazy. he favours rehabilitation too which makes me worry.So he's just not worth your bother. That's not defeat; that's a problem on his end. He refuses to think, and that isn't your problem. Let him ask for your help from now on, but don't offer it.
Scott F:I had a depressing experience the other day/ After trying to talk to my mildly lefty(he says he agrees with some of socialism but admits equality couldn't work except income equality and opposes revolution) friend about libertarianism for at least a couple of weeks , I'm having to admit defeat. He's not willing to be open to different ideas - which is what he accuses me of! I sent him libertarian info and he never even looked at it and told me he didn't want to. He 's strongly opposed to the idea of legalising drugs and prostitution.He believes that all prostitutes are exploited.He seems to think that I believe in no laws at all which I continually tell him I do not .Oh and he thinks allowing people to own guns is crazy. he favours rehabilitation too which makes me worry.
After trying to talk to my mildly lefty(he says he agrees with some of socialism but admits equality couldn't work except income equality and opposes revolution) friend about libertarianism for at least a couple of weeks , I'm having to admit defeat. He's not willing to be open to different ideas - which is what he accuses me of! I sent him libertarian info and he never even looked at it and told me he didn't want to. He 's strongly opposed to the idea of legalising drugs and prostitution.He believes that all prostitutes are exploited.He seems to think that I believe in no laws at all which I continually tell him I do not .Oh and he thinks allowing people to own guns is crazy. he favours rehabilitation too which makes me worry.
Yeah I've gotten to that stage.He's just blind and it's his problem. He's so scared of admitting that his views are wrong he doesn't even want to know different ideas exist.
Democracy for Breakfast: . I think the most ignorant people on a political basis are the religious ones.
. I think the most ignorant people on a political basis are the religious ones.
I have to disagree.Yes some religious people love the state of course.Almost any goal or belief gets mixed in with statism when state lovers are involved.I think historically often the worst excesses of religion have been when it's been involved with the state and /or politics. Now to be clear I'm not saying organised religions don't / haven't said/done some terrible things but look at the bigger picture and you'll see government has done more harm than religion ever has. according to some sources quoted by walter block in an article http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block103.html governments world wide have killed an estimated 200 million (at least) in the 20th century alone while those killed by religious conflicts /wars /withc hunts etc is much lower.
I've noticed that often some of the strongest most vocal libertarians are the religious, mainly christians (there was also that buddhist guy from lew rockwell.com that gave up his citizenship and ceased being under government that was really inspiring).It's like anything mix it with statism and it becomes dirty and tyrannical.Reading lots of religious material recently I've become to think that if I was religious(I'm an atheist) that it would fit well with libertarianism particularly some parts of christianity.
Don't forget many of the Mises Institute are very pro liberty and religious.
I guess it depends on where you live though.Here in england there's less religious people around(or at least where i live) so I find I'm more arguing against atheist statists.
Libertyandlife: Snowflake: Democracy for Breakfast:I think the most ignorant people on a political basis are the religious ones. Catholicism and Christianity have the most ignorant followers ever. Actually this makes everything really easy, because god didn't put us here to be forced to do the right thing, we're supposed to chose it on our own. That's what I've always followed. If there is no free will and religion is compulsive, what is the point of judgement after death? What would be the point of heaven or hell?
My family follow the Babtist church, they believe The Bible was written by God. I just find it stupid that my cousin's college regulates your lifestyle. The RA's pry into your dorm and sanction you for things like content in hair, clothing style, music, television, and video games. When I lived with him, in Johnson City, NY(very far north) the lack of individuality kids had and how close minded they were was astounding. Their youth groups regulated their lives, and parents would assume that music like black/heavy metal is graphic and satanic, when in actuality they just wont look past their prejudice and look at what its artistic characteristics are. All music is artistic, I feel like things like "morality" and "Business etiquitte" create more prejudice.
Fundamentalists are Statists who favor indocterination of schools, age of consent laws, tough drug laws, gay marriage laws, stem cell laws, marriage laws, and regulation of teen's sex lives.
Why does it seem like being racist,sexist, and close minded are often associated with religious people?
One of my best female friends, who lives in Texas, has stingy rich Catholic parents who hated her black boyfriend and tell her she has to be a Republican.
My aunts and uncles are very loyal to the Babtist Church and they liked Bush and just think "Gay marriage is wrong". I was talking to my Aunt abuot it and she was like"I don't think Gay's should be allowed to marry"
"Why?"
"Because its wrong"
"Why is it wrong?"
"Because it just is!"
Scott F:I have to disagree.Yes some religious people love the state of course.Almost any goal or belief gets mixed in with statism when state lovers are involved.
But, the first ever states, WERE established religions, the early Orthodox Churches.
Scott F:I think historically often the worst excesses of religion have been when it's been involved with the state and /or politics. Now to be clear I'm not saying organised religions don't / haven't said/done some terrible things but look at the bigger picture and you'll see government has done more harm than religion ever has.
Only because the time where Governments have ruled is a lot longer then the period of Theocracy/Autocracy/Monarchy. Also, a lot of those numbers are only from the times that there was a State. The Church was a ruling power without a state, there were factions.
Governments may win the "numbers" debate, but the Churches definently win the "brutality" debate.
Scott F:I've noticed that often some of the strongest most vocal libertarians are the religious, mainly christians (there was also that buddhist guy from lew rockwell.com that gave up his citizenship and ceased being under government that was really inspiring).It's like anything mix it with statism and it becomes dirty and tyrannical.Reading lots of religious material recently I've become to think that if I was religious(I'm an atheist) that it would fit well with libertarianism particularly some parts of christianity.
Lots of hot and nicer girls are religious. While it seems like a lot of the assholes, bitches, and girls with problems are athiests/satanists. I just feel like a lot of the religious people I met are close minded about music, drugs, and other beliefs. I tried to explore my spiritual beliefs at one time, I have a lot of problems with Christianity, being that the New Testament has lots of flaws and holes. I looked into all this from a completely unbiased perspective. The Qur'an has a lot more legitmecy in it, but being a Muslim is very strict. I don't think I could pray 4-5 times a day, do ramadan, not eat pork, not drink, not have inmarital sex. Buddhism was the only one that made sense to me.
The problem is Christianity is based heavily on "Original Sin" which is bullshit. I don't believe that Christ "died for our sins" or was at all "Man in the form of God".
I've done LSD, Marijuana and listen to Black Metal. I guess I'm not allowed to be a Christian, even if I did become one, I would have to "cleanse" myself and then keep it that way.
The Late Andrew Ryan: I think that he originally just meant that he refused to associate with anyone who would use violence against another who wasn't directly infringing upon thier rights.... Such all statists indefinatly propose.
No respectable statist contradicts that statement. They instead believe that a different set of rights exists. They believe that taxation does not "infring[e] upon [your] rights", et cetera.
I. Ryan:No respectable statist contradicts that statement. They instead believe that a different set of rights exists. They believe that taxation does not "infring[e] upon [your] rights", et cetera.
And from a persuasion standpoint, these are lousy prospects. An easier convert would be someone who had never thought of the connection between Statism and violence. This would be a much easier sale...
Democracy for Breakfast:I've done LSD, Marijuana and listen to Black Metal. I guess I'm not allowed to be a Christian, even if I did become one, I would have to "cleanse" myself and then keep it that way.
I hope this doesn't sound "preachy" because that ain't my style: Jesus' message was one of peace, love, and redemption. It is the people in the church that are making the rules you're talking about. It is a perversion of the
Democracy for Breakfast: Scott F:I have to disagree.Yes some religious people love the state of course.Almost any goal or belief gets mixed in with statism when state lovers are involved. But, the first ever states, WERE established religions, the early Orthodox Churches. Scott F:I think historically often the worst excesses of religion have been when it's been involved with the state and /or politics. Now to be clear I'm not saying organised religions don't / haven't said/done some terrible things but look at the bigger picture and you'll see government has done more harm than religion ever has. Only because the time where Governments have ruled is a lot longer then the period of Theocracy/Autocracy/Monarchy. Also, a lot of those numbers are only from the times that there was a State. The Church was a ruling power without a state, there were factions. Governments may win the "numbers" debate, but the Churches definently win the "brutality" debate. Scott F:I've noticed that often some of the strongest most vocal libertarians are the religious, mainly christians (there was also that buddhist guy from lew rockwell.com that gave up his citizenship and ceased being under government that was really inspiring).It's like anything mix it with statism and it becomes dirty and tyrannical.Reading lots of religious material recently I've become to think that if I was religious(I'm an atheist) that it would fit well with libertarianism particularly some parts of christianity. Lots of hot and nicer girls are religious. While it seems like a lot of the assholes, bitches, and girls with problems are athiests/satanists. I just feel like a lot of the religious people I met are close minded about music, drugs, and other beliefs. I tried to explore my spiritual beliefs at one time, I have a lot of problems with Christianity, being that the New Testament has lots of flaws and holes. I looked into all this from a completely unbiased perspective. The Qur'an has a lot more legitmecy in it, but being a Muslim is very strict. I don't think I could pray 4-5 times a day, do ramadan, not eat pork, not drink, not have inmarital sex. Buddhism was the only one that made sense to me. The problem is Christianity is based heavily on "Original Sin" which is bullshit. I don't believe that Christ "died for our sins" or was at all "Man in the form of God". I've done LSD, Marijuana and listen to Black Metal. I guess I'm not allowed to be a Christian, even if I did become one, I would have to "cleanse" myself and then keep it that way.
Islam is not that strict as you'd think. I'd say Christianity is much more strict, or other religions in general, and much of Islam is based on your own level of self control and free will. It just seems strict from an outside perspective, it's in fact very simple and easy. When you believe in something, there is much more comfort in adapting to it. Example: Dietary wise, you would probably be stricter if you were Jewish or a vegetarian. Fasting is really easy once you put your mind to it or believe in the reasons to do it, I would say controlling ones anger is more difficult. Not having inmarital sex is just more difficult due to the overload and burden put on marriage today, that's why there is much more dating now as a reaction. Buddhism has some elements I like but find in Islam as well, such as the idea of balance between ascetic or just self indulgent, meditation isn't too far from Muslim prayer, as well as the lack of aggression, but the focus on want being free of desires and reincarnation is what I don't agree with. Connection with worldly items can be harmful, but it is also natural to an extent, and I never understood how Buddhist don't believe a soul or a self, but believe reincarnation.
When it comes to being closeminded, I have met some incredibly arrogant Christians, Muslims, Jews and Atheists, but have also met incredibly understanding or open Christians, Muslims, Jews and Atheists. Sometimes the individual is what matters, some people are ignorant or cruel regardless. Even when it comes to politics, I have met people from every religious group from within Libertarianism and out.
Also when it comes to gay marriage, I think we wouldn't have these problems of perspective if we just eliminated the mixing of state and religion. If a person wants their marriage to between two men, it can be, just not set to the standards of people of different religious views. That's the problem with the state controlling people's lives, it doesn't take into the account that people live differently, and I see is it as the state's natural progression towards liberty through the ages. The state can't survive as long if it doesn't accept diversity, so it has been little by little.
MatthewF: Democracy for Breakfast:I've done LSD, Marijuana and listen to Black Metal. I guess I'm not allowed to be a Christian, even if I did become one, I would have to "cleanse" myself and then keep it that way. I hope this doesn't sound "preachy" because that ain't my style: Jesus' message was one of peace, love, and redemption. It is the people in the church that are making the rules you're talking about. It is a perversion of the Click to show quoted textoriginal message. In this case, don't shoot the message, rather shoot the messenger's. ^What he said. Man loves making up rules to force on others.....hence the reason why this board exists.
Libertyandlife:Fasting is really easy once you put your mind to it or believe in the reasons to do it, I would say controlling ones anger is more difficult. Not having inmarital sex is just more difficult due to the overload and burden put on marriage today, that's why there is much more dating now as a reaction
What if I wanted to have sex? Its pretty darn good, and I feel bad people who miss out because of religious code.
Libertyandlife:I hope this doesn't sound "preachy" because that ain't my style: Jesus' message was one of peace, love, and redemption. It is the people in the church that are making the rules you're talking about. It is a perversion of the Click to show quoted textoriginal message. In this case, don't shoot the message, rather shoot the messenger's. So then maybe Pope is the Statist... as well as the Clergymen, Priests, and Hiearchal Orders within churches. Even without a State, churches like the Catholic one would still retain their hiearchies and WOULD be the states. Catholic churches still believe in Sanctary, Exocommunication and Purification. If you lead a life of drug abuse, crime, and sex then they send those people to become the Priests. I also heard something on NPR of a Sunday School/Day care place that abused children. | Post Points: 20
So then maybe Pope is the Statist... as well as the Clergymen, Priests, and Hiearchal Orders within churches.
Even without a State, churches like the Catholic one would still retain their hiearchies and WOULD be the states. Catholic churches still believe in Sanctary, Exocommunication and Purification. If you lead a life of drug abuse, crime, and sex then they send those people to become the Priests. I also heard something on NPR of a Sunday School/Day care place that abused children.
The original sin part is an issue but not all christians believe in it. I used to be a christian when I was younger and I was pretty open minded. I didn't hate women or gay people.
I'm not sure about buddhism.I used to mediate and think it was cool till I started having a dulling of my emotions and that worried me so I stopped. I've looked into it in recent years and am not too Impressed. the kinds of buddhism that are anti mind,anti wealth,anti materialism,anti thought are just too absurd to deal with.I also think the idea of erasing all desires is pretty utopian and buddhism often seems to deny reality exists which is something I could never buy. Not all buddhists are bad though.
It just seems with religions often when authorities are involved it gets a bit distorted.
...Oh by the way your in the company of a terrorist! I was debating with these people who wanted to raise troops wages and I pointed out that this would require raising taxes and also that there are sound economic reasons why troops earn less than footballers.their response?....
that I must be a terrorist and must hate the troops.Apparently my views make me a child because I oppose the iraq/aghanistan interventions.... In another debate I was compared to a commie because I criticised americam government imperialism .I made it clear I didn't hate american culture or society but somehow they didnt take that in.what shocked me the most was the people who said this are usually the anti-lefty leans towards markets- but- not -quite -capitalism- as -we- libertarian -know- it crowd!
.How do people here deal with the insults made by statists and the opposition? I sometimes find it hard letting go of the anger at them .
Democracy for Breakfast: Libertyandlife:Fasting is really easy once you put your mind to it or believe in the reasons to do it, I would say controlling ones anger is more difficult. Not having inmarital sex is just more difficult due to the overload and burden put on marriage today, that's why there is much more dating now as a reaction What if I wanted to have sex? Its pretty darn good, and I feel bad people who miss out because of religious code. Libertyandlife:I hope this doesn't sound "preachy" because that ain't my style: Jesus' message was one of peace, love, and redemption. It is the people in the church that are making the rules you're talking about. It is a perversion of the Click to show quoted textoriginal message. In this case, don't shoot the message, rather shoot the messenger's. So then maybe Pope is the Statist... as well as the Clergymen, Priests, and Hiearchal Orders within churches. Even without a State, churches like the Catholic one would still retain their hiearchies and WOULD be the states. Catholic churches still believe in Sanctary, Exocommunication and Purification. If you lead a life of drug abuse, crime, and sex then they send those people to become the Priests. I also heard something on NPR of a Sunday School/Day care place that abused children. There is nothing wrong with sex, it's just it requires marriage to the person in the religion. That leads to a different topic entirely, which is the reason to marry, reasons for different behaviors between different people, which to me is the same reason to have any type of serious relationship with anyone. It has to do with commitment, and putting the intentions or expectations of two people on the ground, so neither person gets hurt, or has trouble sharing responsibilities. Plus on top of that there is the push for family. Either way, when it comes to religion, it has its own personal morality, which is not forced by other people, but only by the person itself. That's what a belief is. All of that is beyond the point. If a person is a vegetarian, or have preference in something doesn't mean they are statist, or pro force as long as they are not forcing their ideas onto other people, they practice their free will by taking preference in a way of life. Calling a religion regulatory of people is stupid, whether the person is practicing a good or bad way of life is besides the point if they CHOOSE to live that way. If a person believes a religion, they may choose to follow it, or leave it. Freedom has always been the only route to progress. Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib) | Post Points: 20
Libertyandlife:I hope this doesn't sound "preachy" because that ain't my style: Jesus' message was one of peace, love, and redemption. It is the people in the church that are making the rules you're talking about. It is a perversion of the Click to show quoted textoriginal message. In this case, don't shoot the message, rather shoot the messenger's. So then maybe Pope is the Statist... as well as the Clergymen, Priests, and Hiearchal Orders within churches. Even without a State, churches like the Catholic one would still retain their hiearchies and WOULD be the states. Catholic churches still believe in Sanctary, Exocommunication and Purification. If you lead a life of drug abuse, crime, and sex then they send those people to become the Priests. I also heard something on NPR of a Sunday School/Day care place that abused children.
There is nothing wrong with sex, it's just it requires marriage to the person in the religion. That leads to a different topic entirely, which is the reason to marry, reasons for different behaviors between different people, which to me is the same reason to have any type of serious relationship with anyone. It has to do with commitment, and putting the intentions or expectations of two people on the ground, so neither person gets hurt, or has trouble sharing responsibilities. Plus on top of that there is the push for family. Either way, when it comes to religion, it has its own personal morality, which is not forced by other people, but only by the person itself. That's what a belief is.
All of that is beyond the point. If a person is a vegetarian, or have preference in something doesn't mean they are statist, or pro force as long as they are not forcing their ideas onto other people, they practice their free will by taking preference in a way of life. Calling a religion regulatory of people is stupid, whether the person is practicing a good or bad way of life is besides the point if they CHOOSE to live that way. If a person believes a religion, they may choose to follow it, or leave it.
Libertyandlife: There is nothing wrong with sex, it's just it requires marriage to the person in the religion. That leads to a different topic entirely, which is the reason to marry, reasons for different behaviors between different people, which to me is the same reason to have any type of serious relationship with anyone. It has to do with commitment, and putting the intentions or expectations of two people on the ground, so neither person gets hurt, or has trouble sharing responsibilities. Plus on top of that there is the push for family. Either way, when it comes to religion, it has its own personal morality, which is not forced by other people, but only by the person itself. That's what a belief is. All of that is beyond the point. If a person is a vegetarian, or have preference in something doesn't mean they are statist, or pro force as long as they are not forcing their ideas onto other people, they practice their free will by taking preference in a way of life. Calling a religion regulatory of people is stupid, whether the person is practicing a good or bad way of life is besides the point if they CHOOSE to live that way. If a person believes a religion, they may choose to follow it, or leave it.
Well, this all sounds fine, and good. But it isn't what the Bible says. The teachings on which the popular religions are based do not say that people may choose to live according to religion or not. Rather, the Bible specifies the death penalty for violation of purely ritual laws. By the way, it also doesn't say anything about not having sex outside of marriage, although it does say that a woman may not commit adultery and will receive the death penalty if she does. On the other hand, a man who rapes a woman, if that woman is not married, faces what may or may not be a worse penalty, depending on your preferences - he has to marry her and not divorce her. So even in cases of rape, the only reason for the death penalty is it the aggressor was aggressing against another man - namely, the husband, since the wife is seen as his property.
Now, you might say that religion doesn't have these problems as it is practiced today. Indeed, Jews and Christians do not carry out these penalties. In the case of Jews, the official belief is that we may not do so until the Messiah comes. The case is not so clear for various Christian groups - see Gary North. In practice, many Christian groups, and some Jewish groups, do argue for using the state to enforce these laws, but as you rightly point out, this is not an essential part of religious belief. In both cases, though, what is an essential part of belief is that at some point in the future (and in the past) we will do these things - for Jews, with the coming of the Messiah, for Christians with the Second Coming - and that this is a good thing, to be hoped for anxiously. How does one square this with libertarianism?
Democracy for Breakfast: People hate how much money Business' make and that its to "our expense" that they even favor a cap on CEO Salaries now.
The problem is, the people you are arguing with are likely less than 100 years old. Therefore, for their entire lives, most of their complaints about business have been true of most large companies. Their remedies, of course, are absurd, but trying to argue against the problems puts you in a needlessly weak position. Agree with them - it is true that some major corporations earn profits for no good reason, and so on. How do you fix it? Well, by market discipline, that's how. Regulation - such as the regulation that businesses that fail to produce go out of business. How can it possibly make sense to empower those who have created the situation you are complaining about? Talk about the revolving door. We live in an age when the fact that all state action is actually corporate welfare has been laid bare in the open. Drive that point home.
Democracy for Breakfast: I've done LSD, Marijuana and listen to Black Metal. I guess I'm not allowed to be a Christian, even if I did become one, I would have to "cleanse" myself and then keep it that way.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Doing meth, and having gay sex with a male prostitute, while holding a job preaching the Lord's message to millions on TV isn't enough to get you kicked out of camp these days.
B.T.W. I'm writing this while Sepultura is playing at volume setting 11 (yes, mine goes to 11). They don't count because they are from Brazil, so it's cultural music, not metal.
I. Ryan: The Late Andrew Ryan: No respectable statist
The Late Andrew Ryan:
No respectable statist
I. Ryan: The Late Andrew Ryan: I think that he originally just meant that he refused to associate with anyone who would use violence against another who wasn't directly infringing upon thier rights.... Such all statists indefinatly propose. No respectable statist contradicts that statement. They instead believe that a different set of rights exists. They believe that taxation does not "infring[e] upon [your] rights", et cetera.
Keith Ackermann: Don't be so hard on yourself. Doing meth, and having gay sex with a male prostitute, while holding a job preaching the Lord's message to millions on TV isn't enough to get you kicked out of camp these days. B.T.W. I'm writing this while Sepultura is playing at volume setting 11 (yes, mine goes to 11). They don't count because they are from Brazil, so it's cultural music, not metal.
That doesn't make sense. Black Metal is from Norway and Sweden, so technically that is also cultural music. Most metal is pretty much foreign, the U.S metal bands are the worse.
What I don;t understand is, without the Government the Churches would again become the States. What is stopping Churches from waging Holy Wars against other Religions now? Even if that isn't the case, then Churches would be regulators, the censorshipers, and sometimes the aggressors. Also, in a Cap-An society EVERYONE would have to be religious in order for morality to function without law, but this would then again become a Theocracy.
This is one of the reasons I support Minarchy and not Anarchy.
Um, what?
If one of the reasons you support Minarchy over Anarchy is that people can't be moral without religion, then I tell you to question what you believe in. There are many, many, many, many, many Atheists, such as myself, who have their own set of morals such as "Don't kill, don't steal, don't initiate force, don't smack people, don't lie, etc." I'd be willing to bet people had morals before religious texts were around, you know.
In Anarchy, people would tolerate theocratic governments the same way they treat current governments: they wouldn't. Although, there isn't much of a difference between the two, is there?
The Late Andrew Ryan: What's one of them then? Is it a kinda perty unicorn?
What's one of them then? Is it a kinda perty unicorn?
No. I do not care whether you respect any "statists". I used the adjective "respectable" merely so my statement would include only the subset of "statists" who 'mean well'.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Really? I find most statsts either give me the utilitarian "it mist be done sort of thing or say indeed the good old stanbye of "rights" as in entitled to be given at the expense of everyone else... Ahh good old liberals/socialists
Really? I find most statsts either give me the utilitarian "it mist be done sort of thing or say indeed the good old stanbye of "rights" as in entitled to be given at the expense of everyone else... Ahh good old liberals/socialists
What are you even talking about?
Apparently anarcho-capitalism is "gov by corporations."
"without a gov to create and maintain laws (including individual rights) and check the power of corporations, you'll just have large corporations creating and maintaining their own laws"
I. Ryan: What are you even talking about?
Most of the statists that I talk to these days say that we need the welfare state because with out it everyone will starve and we'll all die and they read "rights" as in things which are granted to people by the state EG. The right to housing, the idea that because people have a right to housing or whatever we need to take funds from productive people and grant these people housing, they totally disregard things like property rights for "socialist" or liberal rights.
Don't think for a moment that this movement doesn't have strong religious and devotional aspects. Replace the concept of deity with that of the free market or freedom and you'll see the similarities.
DarkCatalyst:Don't think for a moment that this movement doesn't have strong religious and devotional aspects
Indeed; I won't think about it for even a moment.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
The Late Andrew Ryan: Most of the statists that I talk to these days say that we need the welfare state because with out it everyone will starve and we'll all die and they read "rights" as in things which are granted to people by the state EG. The right to housing, the idea that because people have a right to housing or whatever we need to take funds from productive people and grant these people housing, they totally disregard things like property rights for "socialist" or liberal rights.
If they "totally disregard things like property rights" but they "totally []regards things like [...] "socialist" or liberal rights", they still, whether you disagree or agree about their interpretation, "[]regard" and attempt to uphold what you and they call "rights". If person X "totally []regards things like [...] "socialist" [...] rights" and person Y "refuses to associate with anyone who would use violence against another who wasn't directly infringing upon thier rights", would person Y not be able to argue with person X because of that reason?
Scenario 1:
Person X: I refuse to associate with any person who condones the use of violence of one person against one other person who has yet to "directly infring[e] upon [his] rights" as I define them.
Person Y: I believe that the demarcation of the set of "rights" of any individual is A.
Person X: I believe that the demarcation of the set of "rights" of any individual is B.
Person Y: I guess that we cannot argue together, then.
[the argument ends]
Scenario 2:
Person X: I refuse to associate with any person who condones the use of violence of one person against one other person who has yet to "directly infring[e] upon [his] rights" as he defines them.
[the argument continues]
Person X: I disagree with that demarcation because P.
Person Y: I disagree with that counterargument because Q.
[et cetera]
I hope that my point is clear at this point. If you believe that your revision of his original statement causes you to have to refuse to argue with a blatant socialist, you are adding an implicit phrase "as I define them" to your statement. If you consistently uphold such a principle, you would refuse to argue with any person who holds any views which differ from your views whatsoever.
It is therefore an example of circular reasoning to defend your views via an appeal to a set of "rights". For, from person to person, the set of "rights" differs. If some one disagrees with you, you cannot merely appeal to that set of "rights", you must also defend that set of "rights". The "NAP" does not justify libertarianism, it merely attempts to summarize libertarianism. You cannot merely appeal to the "NAP", you must also defend the "NAP".
I. Ryan:You cannot merely appeal to the "NAP", you must also defend the "NAP".
no, since refuting the NAP is self-refuting.
Democracy for Breakfast:What I don;t understand is, without the Government the Churches would again become the States. What is stopping Churches from waging Holy Wars against other Religions now?
And even if there were some theocracies--so long as everyone who lived there chose to do so, there's no problem.
nirgrahamUK: no, since refuting the NAP is self-refuting.
Why?
http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-20.pdf
nirgrahamUK: http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-20.pdf
1. If I were to attack you, I would not be implicitly disputing that you, atleast before the attack, own your body. But such action would violate the NAP.
2. If I were to advocate that one part of the population should strike down an other part of the population, I would not be implicitly disputing that each individual which belongs to the other part of the population owns his/her body. But, if I were to succeed in implementing such a system, such an accomplishment would violate the NAP.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Democracy for Breakfast:What I don;t understand is, without the Government the Churches would again become the States. What is stopping Churches from waging Holy Wars against other Religions now?Nothing, other than human decency. And even if there were some theocracies--so long as everyone who lived there chose to do so, there's no problem.
Human decency does not exist, so therefore An-Cap cannot be possible.
I used to be a hardcore socialist/communist, man it was really easy to convert people at that time. They had already been indoctrinated to think like socialists. Now all my friends are socialists and I have become a libertarian...great.
My mother is a socialist/feminist activist and discussions with her usually end with me destroying her arguments on every level and she ignoring it and talking something about hungry people in africa. Within 5 minutes we're shouting at each other lol.
My brother doesn't care a thing about politics and will probably work for the government in the near future. My father is some kind of conservative + Working in a nuclear plant makes him immune to leftist propaganda I think.
But in general I seem to have no talent as a libertarian propagandist. I tell them why they are wrong and they ignore it, I think people don't care too much about logic. Instead it's about how they 'feel' about stuff. I don't work like that so I have trouble converting them. Maybe I should use bullshit psychology on people like Stefan Molyneux, argh.
j4ck: My mother is a socialist/feminist activist and discussions with her usually end with me destroying her arguments on every level and she ignoring it and talking something about hungry people in africa. Within 5 minutes we're shouting at each other lol.
In liberty is where the real compassion evolves to help those in Africa, etc... If people are forced to help others that's not true morality. They are not acting of their own free-will, meaning, they are not actually trying to help. They are only being forced to help and initiated force to help always means somebody is getting hurt. So it's contrary to their true intentions, such as your mother, who I believe has true intentions to help others.
My brother was going the way of communism only recently...lol I think he's a bit late for that. He really didn't have anything to grasp onto. He's getting away from that a bit, but he hasn't fully grasped the fact that to use the government to force their own self-interests on people is truly brutish. He used to start that stuff with me right away about helping other people and do I simply look at people that are starving and say they are not being responsible enough and are simply being out-competed in the free market. In liberty nothing stops anybody from helping each other. I don't know why people think if they really want to help others - nothing is stopping them. In liberty is when people are ONLY helped. In coercion is when somebody is ALWAYS hurt.