[quote]pat wrote:
It breaks down very simply. We all have ideas on how to make the world a better place, but we cannot control the actions of others. The moment we control the actions of others to make the world a better place, we made it a worse place.[/quote]
Awesome libertarian sentiment.[/quote]
You are essentially advocating statelessness and anarchy. [/quote]
I would explain it to you, but then I figure. What’s the point? You’ll find someway not to get it.
It’s not a ‘libertarian’ statement per se. It simply means you cannot enact laws that contradict the laws of nature and expect things to work out. This idea of cleansing the gene pool is not new. The Nazis tried it. It creates chaos not better people. It creates madness and quickly devolves into justifications for horrors.
Let the people fuck. If they have retarded babies, let them love them.
[quote]pat wrote:
It breaks down very simply. We all have ideas on how to make the world a better place, but we cannot control the actions of others. The moment we control the actions of others to make the world a better place, we made it a worse place.[/quote]
Awesome libertarian sentiment.[/quote]
You are essentially advocating statelessness and anarchy. [/quote]
I would explain it to you, but then I figure. What’s the point? You’ll find someway not to get it.
It’s not a ‘libertarian’ statement per se. It simply means you cannot enact laws that contradict the laws of nature and expect things to work out. This idea of cleansing the gene pool is not new. The Nazis tried it. It creates chaos not better people. It creates madness and quickly devolves into justifications for horrors.
Let the people fuck. If they have retarded babies, let them love them.[/quote]
Cleansing the gene pool? Hardly. Preventing the very likely and very avoidable passage of undesirable traits which make the recipient a lifelong dependent and charge of society? Sure. Which “law of nature” is being contradicted, exactly?
[quote]pat wrote:
It breaks down very simply. We all have ideas on how to make the world a better place, but we cannot control the actions of others. The moment we control the actions of others to make the world a better place, we made it a worse place.[/quote]
Awesome libertarian sentiment.[/quote]
You are essentially advocating statelessness and anarchy. [/quote]
I would explain it to you, but then I figure. What’s the point? You’ll find someway not to get it.
It’s not a ‘libertarian’ statement per se. It simply means you cannot enact laws that contradict the laws of nature and expect things to work out. This idea of cleansing the gene pool is not new. The Nazis tried it. It creates chaos not better people. It creates madness and quickly devolves into justifications for horrors.
Let the people fuck. If they have retarded babies, let them love them.[/quote]
Cleansing the gene pool? Hardly. Preventing the very likely and very avoidable passage of undesirable traits which make the recipient a lifelong dependent and charge of society? Sure. Which “law of nature” is being contradicted, exactly?[/quote]
How’s that not cleansing the gene pool?
Do I really have to explain the natural drive of human reproduction?
[quote]pat wrote:
It breaks down very simply. We all have ideas on how to make the world a better place, but we cannot control the actions of others. The moment we control the actions of others to make the world a better place, we made it a worse place.[/quote]
Awesome libertarian sentiment.[/quote]
You are essentially advocating statelessness and anarchy. [/quote]
I would explain it to you, but then I figure. What’s the point? You’ll find someway not to get it.
It’s not a ‘libertarian’ statement per se. It simply means you cannot enact laws that contradict the laws of nature and expect things to work out. This idea of cleansing the gene pool is not new. The Nazis tried it. It creates chaos not better people. It creates madness and quickly devolves into justifications for horrors.
Let the people fuck. If they have retarded babies, let them love them.[/quote]
Cleansing the gene pool? Hardly. Preventing the very likely and very avoidable passage of undesirable traits which make the recipient a lifelong dependent and charge of society? Sure. Which “law of nature” is being contradicted, exactly?[/quote]
How’s that not cleansing the gene pool?
Do I really have to explain the natural drive of human reproduction?[/quote]
I agree, let them fuck and have babies if they want as you say. But if they choose to, why should my money go towards taking care of them because of someone (themselves or their guardians) irresponsibility.
[quote]pat wrote:
It breaks down very simply. We all have ideas on how to make the world a better place, but we cannot control the actions of others. The moment we control the actions of others to make the world a better place, we made it a worse place.[/quote]
Awesome libertarian sentiment.[/quote]
You are essentially advocating statelessness and anarchy. [/quote]
I would explain it to you, but then I figure. What’s the point? You’ll find someway not to get it.
It’s not a ‘libertarian’ statement per se. It simply means you cannot enact laws that contradict the laws of nature and expect things to work out. This idea of cleansing the gene pool is not new. The Nazis tried it. It creates chaos not better people. It creates madness and quickly devolves into justifications for horrors.
Let the people fuck. If they have retarded babies, let them love them.[/quote]
Cleansing the gene pool? Hardly. Preventing the very likely and very avoidable passage of undesirable traits which make the recipient a lifelong dependent and charge of society? Sure. Which “law of nature” is being contradicted, exactly?[/quote]
How’s that not cleansing the gene pool?
Do I really have to explain the natural drive of human reproduction?[/quote]
Not in the nefarious sense you are trying to paint it in. Oh, sex as a biological imperative. Natural law implied something else entirely.
Sure, the mentally disabled will have a biological imperative to pass on their genes. Given that they lack agency, should they be allowed to do so by those who are their legal guardians? Absolutely not.
[quote]pat wrote:
It breaks down very simply. We all have ideas on how to make the world a better place, but we cannot control the actions of others. The moment we control the actions of others to make the world a better place, we made it a worse place.[/quote]
Awesome libertarian sentiment.[/quote]
You are essentially advocating statelessness and anarchy. [/quote]
I would explain it to you, but then I figure. What’s the point? You’ll find someway not to get it.
It’s not a ‘libertarian’ statement per se. It simply means you cannot enact laws that contradict the laws of nature and expect things to work out. This idea of cleansing the gene pool is not new. The Nazis tried it. It creates chaos not better people. It creates madness and quickly devolves into justifications for horrors.
Let the people fuck. If they have retarded babies, let them love them.[/quote]
It very much was a libertarian sentiment. The idea that the moment one controls the actions of others to make the world a better place, he makes it worse is the core belief of libertarianism. It’s the non-aggression principle using different words.
[quote]pat wrote:
It breaks down very simply. We all have ideas on how to make the world a better place, but we cannot control the actions of others. The moment we control the actions of others to make the world a better place, we made it a worse place.[/quote]
Awesome libertarian sentiment.[/quote]
You are essentially advocating statelessness and anarchy. [/quote]
I would explain it to you, but then I figure. What’s the point? You’ll find someway not to get it.
It’s not a ‘libertarian’ statement per se. It simply means you cannot enact laws that contradict the laws of nature and expect things to work out. This idea of cleansing the gene pool is not new. The Nazis tried it. It creates chaos not better people. It creates madness and quickly devolves into justifications for horrors.
Let the people fuck. If they have retarded babies, let them love them.[/quote]
It very much was a libertarian sentiment. The idea that the moment one controls the actions of others to make the world a better place, he makes it worse is the core belief of libertarianism. It’s the non-aggression principle using different words.[/quote]
Ok, maybe it is. I wasn’t trying to make a libertarian statement. I just find this idea of controlling the propagation of ‘undesirable genes’ kind of appalling. It’s a terrible slippery slope. What’s an ‘undesirable’ gene? First we start with the mentally handicapped and where do we stop? Do we allow hammer toes? People with cancer genes? We gonna need a license to procreate?
[quote]pat wrote:
It breaks down very simply. We all have ideas on how to make the world a better place, but we cannot control the actions of others. The moment we control the actions of others to make the world a better place, we made it a worse place.[/quote]
Awesome libertarian sentiment.[/quote]
You are essentially advocating statelessness and anarchy. [/quote]
I would explain it to you, but then I figure. What’s the point? You’ll find someway not to get it.
It’s not a ‘libertarian’ statement per se. It simply means you cannot enact laws that contradict the laws of nature and expect things to work out. This idea of cleansing the gene pool is not new. The Nazis tried it. It creates chaos not better people. It creates madness and quickly devolves into justifications for horrors.
Let the people fuck. If they have retarded babies, let them love them.[/quote]
It very much was a libertarian sentiment. The idea that the moment one controls the actions of others to make the world a better place, he makes it worse is the core belief of libertarianism. It’s the non-aggression principle using different words.[/quote]
Ok, maybe it is. I wasn’t trying to make a libertarian statement. I just find this idea of controlling the propagation of ‘undesirable genes’ kind of appalling. It’s a terrible slippery slope. What’s an ‘undesirable’ gene? First we start with the mentally handicapped and where do we stop? Do we allow hammer toes? People with cancer genes? We gonna need a license to procreate? [/quote]
If you don’t believe that mental disability is an undesirable trait, you may yourself be mentally disabled. But seriously, what good can come from such reproduction? How does it benefit society?
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, maybe it is. I wasn’t trying to make a libertarian statement. I just find this idea of controlling the propagation of ‘undesirable genes’ kind of appalling. It’s a terrible slippery slope. What’s an ‘undesirable’ gene? First we start with the mentally handicapped and where do we stop? Do we allow hammer toes? People with cancer genes? We gonna need a license to procreate? [/quote]
I didn’t say you tried to make a libertarian statement…only that you did(only the sickest of the sick-or maybe just the most powerful…we are just humans, after all-don’t support libertarianism). As for the rest, the pretense of knowledge( The Pretense of Knowledge | Mises Institute ) is always a problem(perhaps, it is the root of the problem…“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”-H.L. Mencken)
The slippery slope begins long before the “idea of controlling the propagation of ‘undesirable genes.’” The top of the slope is the idea that force is justified to control the actions of others.
The most practical solution is sterilization. If the guardians are up to taking an another round then its fine. There are people that do that. Either because they themselves are under (or is it over) par or because they want to do it and are up for the task. It depends on the the cause of the disability, if it is genetic or not. A lottery of sorts.
People tend to develop a very strong bond to their disabled children. The story of the sane sibling in a family with a disabled child has been told in numerous different variations.
Good advice, but it will likely go unheeded due to delusions of grandeur(the idea that he is a member of the ruling class).[/quote]
The statist that he is (and has confessed to being) never considers doing the requisite cost/benefit analyses in regards to personal liberty and societal benefits. The societal benefit banner is always hoisted first and foremost. If the individual liberty banner is even allowed within the troop it is shoved to the rear of the column and is nothing more than an afterthought.
That philosophy has done nothing but cause misery and pain for millennia.
[/quote]
Delusions of grandeur are the only thing to which I can attribute support of statism. There is no other logical explanation for non-rulers defending the practice of rulers. After all, one who believes humans can’t handle freedom certainly can’t logically conclude that the best way to protect his own freedom is to hand over control of his freedom to other humans. The only way one can come to the conclusion that the state is the answer is to delude himself(or be deluded) into believing that he is, in fact, a member of the ruling class.
Good advice, but it will likely go unheeded due to delusions of grandeur(the idea that he is a member of the ruling class).[/quote]
The statist that he is (and has confessed to being) never considers doing the requisite cost/benefit analyses in regards to personal liberty and societal benefits. The societal benefit banner is always hoisted first and foremost. If the individual liberty banner is even allowed within the troop it is shoved to the rear of the column and is nothing more than an afterthought.
That philosophy has done nothing but cause misery and pain for millennia.
[/quote]
Delusions of grandeur are the only thing to which I can attribute statism. There is no other logical explanation for non-rulers defending the practice of rulers. After all, one who believes humans can’t handle freedom certainly can’t logically conclude that the best way to protect freedom is to hand over control of his freedom to other humans. The only way one can come to the conclusion that the state is the answer is to delude himself(or be deluded) into believing that he is, in fact, a member of the ruling class.[/quote]
Lol,
Black (Bismark) allow me to introduce you to White (NickViar). Enjoy the eternal struggle between statism and anarchism while the rest of use, living in the gray area AKA reality, discuss real life.
Delusions of grandeur are the only thing to which I can attribute support of statism. There is no other logical explanation for non-rulers defending the practice of rulers. After all, one who believes humans can’t handle freedom certainly can’t logically conclude that the best way to protect freedom is to hand over control of his freedom to other humans. The only way one can come to the conclusion that the state is the answer is to delude himself(or be deluded) into believing that he is, in fact, a member of the ruling class.[/quote]
Where have you seen people capable of handing freedom? Not that I oppose the thought. But a balance of rigidness / freedom seems to be the thing that works.
Even worse, a great number of people that have had the opportunity for freedom, have voted against freedom. Are they uninformed? In that case you are proposing a system that puts great demands on its participants. How do you fathom humankind is up for the task?
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Even worse, a great number of people that have had the opportunity for freedom, have voted against freedom.[/quote]
Nobody votes against freedom for himself(of course, in an American-style democracy, freedom is not really an option…the choice is between rulers-or minor differences in management techniques, behind different faces); people only vote against freedom for others.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
In that case you are proposing a system that puts great demands on its participants. How do you fathom humankind is up for the task? [/quote]
Yes, eternal vigilance does seem to be the price of liberty. I don’t think people are up to the task, but I think shooting for anything else is pointless.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Even worse, a great number of people that have had the opportunity for freedom, have voted against freedom.[/quote]
Nobody votes against freedom for himself(of course, in an American-style democracy, freedom is not really an option…the choice is between rulers-or minor differences is management techniques, behind different faces); people only vote against freedom for others.[/quote]
So? How could a standard population adhere to the rules of libertaniarism?