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:Listen, boy. I never claimed to be a "radical libertarian"
Hey, buddy, care to tell me how I've been hypocrite?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:No wonder I focused on that, it was the point I was making.
Knight_of_BAAWA: I know you're pissed because most people here don't take your myth seriously.
GilesStratton:No, I'm pissed because my Hoppe inspired warning sign that read "Warning: Trespassers Will Be Caught in a Perfomative Contradiction" didn't work. Do you really think I'm pissed because a bunch of people on an internet discussion board don't "take my myth seriously"? (What myth would this be?)
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, it wasn't. Your "point" was an attempt at a strawman of saying that all libertarians are pacifists and hate any sort of military. Please don't lie, Giles. Your words are right there for all to see.
I expect quotations. I never said libertarians are pacifists, I just said they lack the balls to do anything.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Mmhmmmm. Now when you're done having your tantrum, have a nap on your rug.
You're the Randroid here, your life is on perpetual tantrum against the "powers that be".
GilesStratton: your life is on perpetual tantrum against the "powers that be".
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
GilesStratton:Hey, buddy, care to tell me how I've been hypocrite?
Now it's time to put all this to bed, Giles. Take a day or two off and get a handle on yourself. No, I'm not banning you or suggesting it. I'm simply giving you a quid's worth of free advice.
GilesStratton:I expect quotations. I never said libertarians are pacifists, I just said they lack the balls to do anything.
Harry Felker: wilderness:I'm saying the choice is potential as long as the person is alive. Tell that to the man who is choosing compliance or imprisonment (better yet savage beating/death)
wilderness:I'm saying the choice is potential as long as the person is alive.
Tell that to the man who is choosing compliance or imprisonment (better yet savage beating/death)
the man is either still fighting back or gave up... has choice.
Harry Felker: wilderness:Liberty can't be removed from the person that's why it's a natural right. It is "of" the person. I think there are some people it is not so natural, they can choose between crunchy and smooth peanut butter and they believe they are free, despite their words and actions are controlled...
wilderness:Liberty can't be removed from the person that's why it's a natural right. It is "of" the person.
I think there are some people it is not so natural, they can choose between crunchy and smooth peanut butter and they believe they are free, despite their words and actions are controlled...
they are choosing crunchy or smooth... the type of choices they are to make a judgement upon can be controlled which is why I wouldn't want my liberty to be restricted to the point of self-defense as I'm being savagely beaten. I would hope to avoid that narrowing of choice.
Harry Felker: wilderness:Liberty isn't rid. Restricted, yes. Fair enough, but restriction can be so ingrained that freedom is death....
wilderness:Liberty isn't rid. Restricted, yes.
Fair enough, but restriction can be so ingrained that freedom is death....
I can understand somebody wanting to choose death instead of living when life's conditions become so horrible.
Liberty, itself, is incorruptible. It's act in body - me actually carrying forth liberty in my arms, legs, etc... - can be (1) a society fully recognizing and acting with respect to each others liberty (2) restricted to a debate with another person who doesn't believe in liberty or (3) to a further extent that such a person doesn't believe in liberty so much they don't debate and dialogue they try to kill me. My choice in acting in liberty in the latter is restricted by another person and thus I act in self-defense, but in (1), (2), and (3) it is still the same liberty. Liberty can be abstracted in principle and thus why it is universal. It is not individual specific, though, specific individual possess liberty. Now if liberty for somebody is death, then what can I do about that. Suicide is horrible. Unless you had something else in mind about "freedom is death".
Harry Felker: wilderness:But if it is rid, then how can a person ever in their life get it back? Look at the people around you that cannot survive if the US government falls... Let us play a little chess on this topic... Government failure, looting has happened and now the food is running out, how many people do you think survived to this point, how many are ready to survive without the supermarket, electric, phone, police, etc.? People are so dependent on the society they are used to that they are unprepared to deal with others without money, without government, these people are not free, they have the restrictions on their liberty so deeply ingrained into them that they are not free, and fear freedom, as they should, look at Jacob Bloom, he is afraid of being free, and as such is catagorically consigned to slavery to the state, or death...
wilderness:But if it is rid, then how can a person ever in their life get it back?
Look at the people around you that cannot survive if the US government falls... Let us play a little chess on this topic...
Government failure, looting has happened and now the food is running out, how many people do you think survived to this point, how many are ready to survive without the supermarket, electric, phone, police, etc.? People are so dependent on the society they are used to that they are unprepared to deal with others without money, without government, these people are not free, they have the restrictions on their liberty so deeply ingrained into them that they are not free, and fear freedom, as they should, look at Jacob Bloom, he is afraid of being free, and as such is catagorically consigned to slavery to the state, or death...
You're adding all these accidentals [3 Philosophy (in Aristotelian thought) relating to or denoting properties that are not essential to a thing's nature.] in defining liberty. I understand lots of people may go crazy if they can't get food. People get really angry if their cell-phone doesn't work - really heated sometimes as is now. It is ingrained in them. I completely agree. I'm not quite sure how this fits into their not aggressing with anybody else, unless, you are saying that if all this is gone certain people will begin violating liberty in numerous places, I don't know, but I the probably is high, yes. But what are you trying to say dealing with liberty in this context you've set up?
Harry Felker: wilderness:They couldn't, cause it's not in their possession anymore according to what you are saying. I disagree with that notion. What I am saying is that there are people that are so dispossessed from freedom that it is unatainable for them
wilderness:They couldn't, cause it's not in their possession anymore according to what you are saying. I disagree with that notion.
What I am saying is that there are people that are so dispossessed from freedom that it is unatainable for them
Liberty is within the person. People not realizing how restricted their liberty is, is undoubtedly why this culture gets easily stressed, is in a war every generation since the U.S. was founded, they get freaked out by snow, hyper sexualized culture Britney Spears, etc... A restriction of liberty leads to choices that become more base, more brute. Closer to animals than human with enough thought mobility and pride injected in this culture to keep them thinking they are being more intellectual when in reality they may not be being very thoughtful about life. And when the so called heavy thoughts, like liberty, impact their intellect they can't handle it, shut down, and run away.
?
wilderness:they are choosing crunchy or smooth... the type of choices they are to make a judgement upon can be controlled which is why I wouldn't want my liberty to be restricted to the point of self-defense as I'm being savagely beaten. I would hope to avoid that narrowing of choice.
Glorifying the choice between crunchy and smooth while living in a cage is not a good stance for liberty, it is like being a slave and saying well, at least I can wipe my brow with my sleeve or my hankerchief....
wilderness:Unless you had something else in mind about "freedom is death".
Something else indeed, Freedom is death, meaning they cannot survive in a world where they are not entitled to the necessities of life...
wilderness:You're adding all these accidentals [3 Philosophy (in Aristotelian thought) relating to or denoting properties that are not essential to a thing's nature.] in defining liberty.
No, I am explaining how freedom will kill some people, I am not defining liberty, but building a hypothetical crisis situation...
wilderness:But what are you trying to say dealing with liberty in this context you've set up?
That some people, I do believe it is a majority, have reneged on the whole freedom bit, they believe their slavery they have now is freedom, and to be truly free will kill them, they are not free individuals, but domesticated animals, and without their shepherds they will perish...
I for one, feel bad for them, some are funny, some are nice, but I am no longer willing to trade enslavement for their survival, this thought may be draconian, but I know full well that if I and the others like me attain total freedom, the drones will not be able to sustain themselves....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Knight_of_BAAWA:Oh, well then you think they're cowards. Now you have to back that up. Go to it.
Yeah, pretty much. Actually, the burden of proof is on you.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Now it's time to put all this to bed, Giles. Take a day or two off and get a handle on yourself. No, I'm not banning you or suggesting it. I'm simply giving you a quid's worth of free advice.
Well, unless the Rothbardians are taking their leave from this place, en masse, within the next two days. I think it'd need to be longer than that. But I'll pass on the advice.
GilesStratton:Yeah, pretty much. Actually, the burden of proof is on you.
GilesStratton:Well, unless the Rothbardians are taking their leave from this place, en masse, within the next two days. I think it'd need to be longer than that. But I'll pass on the advice.
Knight_of_BAAWA:I can relieve you of your illusion of choice, you know
If you really want to, go for it.
Harry Felker: wilderness:they are choosing crunchy or smooth... the type of choices they are to make a judgement upon can be controlled which is why I wouldn't want my liberty to be restricted to the point of self-defense as I'm being savagely beaten. I would hope to avoid that narrowing of choice. Glorifying the choice between crunchy and smooth while living in a cage is not a good stance for liberty, it is like being a slave and saying well, at least I can wipe my brow with my sleeve or my hankerchief....
Potential liberty is present. It is in the person. It never left the person is my point. But the actualizing of liberty into the world by such a person would be a horrible demonstration. I agree.
Harry Felker: wilderness:Unless you had something else in mind about "freedom is death". Something else indeed, Freedom is death, meaning they cannot survive in a world where they are not entitled to the necessities of life...
ok. Yes people give up their ability to act in liberty. Are we side tracking from the main crux of what seemed to be a disagreement?
Harry Felker: wilderness:You're adding all these accidentals [3 Philosophy (in Aristotelian thought) relating to or denoting properties that are not essential to a thing's nature.] in defining liberty. No, I am explaining how freedom will kill some people, I am not defining liberty, but building a hypothetical crisis situation...
Oh. So we've moved onto another topic. ok.
Harry Felker: wilderness:But what are you trying to say dealing with liberty in this context you've set up? That some people, I do believe it is a majority, have reneged on the whole freedom bit, they believe their slavery they have now is freedom, and to be truly free will kill them, they are not free individuals, but domesticated animals, and without their shepherds they will perish...
I completely agree. My only initial point was that liberty is within each person. People can "give it up", but I think to state it that way may blur the actual locus of liberty. To "give it up" can denote something tangible, a thing called liberty, like a piece of wood was given from one person to another person. Liberty isn't tangible in such a way. This was the semantics I was trying to avoid with Anarchist Cain. I potentially saw this coming. I can see the actualization of liberty - lived - and put into application by a person in relation with the rest of the world being restricted, but that means it's become more potential and suppressed into a persons inner recesses. Nobody actually "took" it. Like a piece of wood can be "taken". Restricted, suppressed, and made potential - yes - but not tangibly taken.
Harry Felker: I for one, feel bad for them, some are funny, some are nice, but I am no longer willing to trade enslavement for their survival, this thought may be draconian, but I know full well that if I and the others like me attain total freedom, the drones will not be able to sustain themselves....
I'm headed that way. I've been slowly trying to walk away.
wilderness:Are we side tracking from the main crux of what seemed to be a disagreement?
No this was what I was talking about the entire time.... LOL....
wilderness: My only initial point was that liberty is within each person.
This was why I switched to freedom, I should have noted such....
wilderness:I'm headed that way. I've been slowly trying to walk away.
This is why I can see all of my property, short 30 sqft, from within my home...
Well, Bawaa, here's my proof, you don't even have the balls to ban me for a few days. Let alone "fight the state".