As I've mentioned before in another thread I've been studying history for a while now. I can't figure out where people get this idea that it is honorable to fight in a war. In fact I've pretty my view on war is almost completely a pacifist one. I do not feel that wars of aggression need to be fought. Nations need not be invaded by one another. Wars of imperialist conquest are just simply wrong and there are better methods of uniting a region rather than just war. I feel that the only wars that are really justified in history are revolutionary wars, or, rebellions. I don't think even those need to happen. I feel that revolutionary wars happen only because an imperial power is somewhere they aren't supposed to be, so, they pay the consequences. Other than that- wars are just wrong- unless you love fighting for the state or being some political pawn out there. I'd like to get some libertarian views on this. I don't know why people feel that it is honorable to fightin a war. Unless you really liked empire building I don't see what you would find honorable in fighting a war.
GilesStratton:I think calling him by his first name might be a bit rude giving the fact you don't know him, Mr Antine might be a more appropriate way to address him.
You, who are a third party, have no say in the pleasantries I afford to other individuals. Kindly keep your comments about my mannerisms to yourself unless I am addressing you personally.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Anarchist Cain:You cannot choose to become a slave for like I stated, slavery is an involuntary state.
So I can opt out of government?
Anarchist Cain:Therefore Byz will choose to have an advisor/mentor who will governn him as to what is best and what isn't while still retaining the final decision making.
So long as the advisor/mentor can imprison you for not following arbitrary rules, it is slavery, his choice is either to follow rules or not, the ruler (master) does not come into this choice, the master was chosen by his location....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
GilesStratton:I win. See, I can ignore and misrepresent what you're actually saying too!.
I did not misquote you.. So no, you are not doing the same thing as I am. Apparently, you are easily confused.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Harry Felker:So I can opt out of government?
That's what we are trying to do.
Harry Felker:So long as the advisor/mentor can imprison you for not following arbitrary rules, it is slavery, his choice is either to follow rules or not, the ruler (master) does not come into this choice, the master was chosen by his location.
You have to elaborate on this point because it is not making sense.
Harry Felker: @ AC and Wild, Freedom is not inalienable, sort of, the problem is that the idealism is that all humans are free, some, like Byz, will choose slavery, so long as he is the house slave and not the field slave...
@ AC and Wild, Freedom is not inalienable, sort of, the problem is that the idealism is that all humans are free, some, like Byz, will choose slavery, so long as he is the house slave and not the field slave...
He can choose to do that, but he can choose to not do that (though his choice to rid the slavery may at this point only change by using brute force). That choice to be a slave or not a slave is liberty. Even if his master chained him, the person could shout out in defiance. The master could tear out his vocal cords, but the slave can still think it. The master could tear out his brain, but the slave would be dead. The only way to rid liberty is kill the person, but that's only the liberty in that particular person. But now that's murder and not slavery so that's a different topic.
Edit: This is also why liberty, person (life), and property are natural rights... they are "of" the person.
wilderness:That choice to be a slave or not a slave is liberty.
I disagree with this. What makes someone a slave or not a slave isn't choice but the adaquency of the force they apply in self-defense.
Anarchist Cain: wilderness:That choice to be a slave or not a slave is liberty. I disagree with this. What makes someone a slave or not a slave isn't choice but the adaquency of the force they apply in self-defense.
I agree. I'm trying to avoid semantics, and I think you did avoid semantics in what you say here.
wilderness:I agree. I'm trying to avoid semantics, and I think you did avoid semantics in what you say here.
I think we have reach an era of linguistic debates here on the forums and its rather tiresome. People yelling at each other over words.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Maybe you should take some time off, Giles. Might help your attitude.
Optimist.
liberty student: Knight_of_BAAWA:Maybe you should take some time off, Giles. Might help your attitude. Optimist.
Haha! Trust me, I'm a delightful guy in person.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
people you shouldnt trust: people that say "trust me"
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
nirgrahamUK: people you shouldnt trust: people that say "trust me"
And the Dutch!
Byzantine: Harry Felker: @ Byz, does that mean slavery is ok as long as the slave is comfortable? As long as the slave has agreed to it. And perhaps we are going to get in a semantic debate here. I think an agreement to sell your labor in exchange for giving up some freedom, e.g., the freedom to leave and seek employment elsewhere, is perfectly legitimate. In fact, that is what every employment relationship is to some degree. Trophy wives routinely agree to forego all the rights they'd otherwise have in exchange for providing sex and companionship to wealthy men. My current employer won't let me earn any income from my skill set from anybody else; that is a restriction on my right to seek employment. For people with marginal skills, a secure source of room and board may be far more valuable to them than their personal liberty.
Harry Felker: @ Byz, does that mean slavery is ok as long as the slave is comfortable?
As long as the slave has agreed to it. And perhaps we are going to get in a semantic debate here. I think an agreement to sell your labor in exchange for giving up some freedom, e.g., the freedom to leave and seek employment elsewhere, is perfectly legitimate. In fact, that is what every employment relationship is to some degree. Trophy wives routinely agree to forego all the rights they'd otherwise have in exchange for providing sex and companionship to wealthy men. My current employer won't let me earn any income from my skill set from anybody else; that is a restriction on my right to seek employment.
For people with marginal skills, a secure source of room and board may be far more valuable to them than their personal liberty.
footnote: misuse of "slave" and "right" in this paragraph...
wilderness: footnote: misuse of "slave" and "right" in this paragraph...
lol, no important words then !