Brainpolice said:For example, one's ownership over their home, even if it is a just case of ownership, does not give you the right to assault and murder people just because they are in one's home. In other words, property rights do not trump life and liberty.
That strikes me as odd. I thought... well, I remember reading two very poignant scenarios in which consistency in justice must prevail over liberal morality if consistency is to be maintained.
One example was that a man who has been lost in the woods for days and is on the verge of dying comes onto your cabin property and begins shuffling through your kitchen. You shoot him. Are you in the wrong or the right? The article said in the right -- for you were defending your property.
If you invite a friend over for dinner and then shank him as soon as he enters the door, well, that certainly feels different, but why is one okay and not the other (at least according to my understanding of BP's statements)?
juan, what are you even critiquing anymore? i havent been refused service by any PDA
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:juan, what are you even critiquing anymore? i havent been refused service by any PDA So what. Please answer my question ? X fully supports the NIAP and yet the PDAs treat X as if X were virtually a criminal ? How so ?
thats a good question. an even better question is do you know the difference between being a criminal, and being treated as virtually a criminal?
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
because life isnt fair. because people dont have positive obligations to provide insurance and protection services to people if they dont want to. and on and on, its almost like you know less about libertarianism than you did when we started
sheeeeesh
Looks like I gave Juan a new argument, imagine that.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
an even better question is do you know the difference between being a criminal, and being treated as virtually a criminal?
I'm curious, if person A says to person B, jokingly, "if you do X, you're so dead", can person B put a bullet in A's brain?
Juan:because life isnt fair. because people dont have positive obligations to provide insurance and protection services to people if they dont want to. and on and on, its almost like you know less about libertarianism than you did when we started Stop lying. Your answers are beyond silly
LOL. On TWO accounts. First I laughed at NUK's comment (knowing less than when you started) and secondly at Juan's response.
Specifically in what I quoted of NUK's, what's a lie? Life isn't fair. In a free society, I don't HAVE to serve you candy if I don't want to. Beautiful, isn't it?
Daniel Waite:Specifically in what I quoted of NUK's, what's a lie? Life isn't fair. In a free society, I don't HAVE to serve you candy if I don't want to. Beautiful, isn't it?
I think you're missing Juan's point to be honest.
Juan:Never mind. Stop quibbling.
Oh man, my sides are splitting from laughter.
nirgrahamUK: its almost like you know less about libertarianism than you did when we started
its almost like you know less about libertarianism than you did when we started
Juan has been making it up as he goes for a long time. It's all his preferences, and a society that follows libertarian values without conflict, which is why his ever mentioning PDAs is laughable. Juan believes that a "libertarian society" will include stepford people who follow the NAP without question or conflict. It's as utopian as it is naive.
Daniel Waite: what's a lie? Life isn't fair. In a free society, I don't HAVE to serve you candy if I don't want to.
See my last post. I've butted heads with Juan on this many times. He really believes that conflict won't arise, can't arise because a libertarian society, always follows the NAP.
Also, in a free society, people won't serve people they don't like. They will fire warning shot at strangers standing in their yard. They will release their dogs to play on their property, if there is a stranger in the back yard, and they will not call the dogs off if they attack a trespasser.
As it should be. The trespasser, doesn't place a positive obligation on the property owner by aggressing against him. To believe otherwise, is uncivilized.
Daniel Waite:Specifically in what I quoted of NUK's, what's a lie?
In a free society, I don't HAVE to serve you candy if I don't want to. Beautiful, isn't it?
LS: The trespasser, doesn't place a positive obligation on the property owner by aggressing against him. To believe otherwise, is uncivilized.