[quote]NickViar wrote:
Nobody votes against freedom for himself . . . people only vote against freedom for others.
[/quote]
I’m sympathetic with the libertarian cause to say the least but this is a pretty bold claim.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
So? How could a standard population adhere to the rules of libertaniarism? [/quote]
A libertarian society would not last for long. All societies become increasingly totalitarian until they collapse.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Nobody votes against freedom for himself . . . people only vote against freedom for others.
[/quote]
I’m sympathetic with the libertarian cause to say the least but this is a pretty bold claim.[/quote]
That’s true; it would have been more accurate to say that MOST people only vote against freedom for others. However, it is an asinine belief that a vote in a basically totalitarian society(YOUR MONEY IS FORCEFULLY TAKEN FROM YOU) is anything else. If a society was to rid itself of taxation, then it could talk about actually caring about freedom.
I don’t even pretend to know(or, really, even believe) that a free society is possible, but I know that taxation would have to be eliminated for it to even make the claim. I know there would be the “free rider problem,” but how much worse is the modern state? Should people really be so worried about free riders that they allow an entity to begin robbing EVERYONE(not to mention the fact that it may then decide to PAY people to BE free riders)?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
So? How could a standard population adhere to the rules of libertaniarism? [/quote]
A libertarian society would not last for long. All societies become increasingly totalitarian until they collapse.[/quote]
So why are you for it? A camouflage operation?
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
So why are you for it? A camouflage operation? [/quote]
Why am I in favor of freedom? Well, I would love to be free, if only for a short time(and I hope I would be long gone before society gets back to its current point). I think resetting at “100% free”(or even 90%) is preferable to the choice between “90%” and “91%” unfree.
A camouflage operation for what?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
So why are you for it? A camouflage operation? [/quote]
Why am I in favor of freedom? Well, I would love to be free, if only for a short time(and I hope I would be long gone before society gets back to its current point). I think resetting at “100% free”(or even 90%) is preferable to the choice between “90%” and “91%” unfree.
A camouflage operation for what?[/quote]
A camouflage for a personal wish. You can only be free when someone have paid for it. If you return the favour you are not free. You are bound by obligation. Why do you think libertaniarism would be possible at all? For the duration of your life? Couldn’t you spend your time in a more effective way to get freedom in this life. for example, by being smart?
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
A camouflage for a personal wish. You can only be free when someone have paid for it. If you return the favour you are not free. You are bound by obligation. Why do you think libertaniarism would be possible at all? For the duration of your life? Couldn’t you spend your time in a more effective way to get freedom in this life. for example, by being smart?[/quote]
If you return a favor, you are not free? Really? How so? A favor is voluntary. Returning a favor is voluntary. There is no obligation when it comes to favors.
The fact that freedom is not without cost does not make it something else-that’s just the reason that freedom can never last for long. Freedom can include any voluntary action the actor desires, as long as that action doesn’t infringe on another’s freedom.
I’m not sure why it’s so hard for so many to see the difference between voluntarism and coercion.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
If you return a favor, you are not free? Really? How so? A favor is voluntary. Returning a favor is voluntary. There is no obligation when it comes to favors.
The fact that freedom is not without cost does not make it something else-that’s just the reason that freedom can never last for long. Freedom can include any voluntary action the actor desires, as long as that action doesn’t infringe on another’s freedom.
I’m not sure why it’s so hard for so many to see the difference between voluntarism and coercion.[/quote]
Have you lived your life without coercion? Why do you think it would be possible when practically no-one on this earth has managed to live without coercion? So you have never manipulated anyone for your own gain?
How do you regulate if people are with you or not?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
If you return a favor, you are not free? Really? How so? A favor is voluntary. Returning a favor is voluntary. There is no obligation when it comes to favors.
[/quote]
Tell that to your mother.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Have you lived your life without coercion? Why do you think it would be possible when practically no-one on this earth has managed to live without coercion? So you have never manipulated anyone for your own gain?
How do you regulate if people are with you or not?[/quote]
No. I don’t. Not directly, not that I remember. Why should I care to regulate if people are with me or not?
Your last question may not have translated clearly. If you meant to ask how a free society could ensure that it remains free of coercion, then my answer is that its people would have to treat any attempt to use such as what it is and respond with sufficient defensive force to stop the threat. Would it happen? Maybe a few times. How long would such a society remain free? Until enough people support the initiator of force to overpower those who want freedom.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
If you return a favor, you are not free? Really? How so? A favor is voluntary. Returning a favor is voluntary. There is no obligation when it comes to favors.
[/quote]
Tell that to your mother.[/quote]
Is that some type of insult that doesn’t translate quite right, or do you mean it literally?
A mother VOLUNTARILY gives birth to a child. Who owes whom in such a situation? I don’t think either should legally owe the other anything. If either, then the mother, who made the conscious decision to give birth, owes the child. If someone does a FAVOR for someone, then it’s a FAVOR. Nothing is owed, and if the person who did the supposed favor for the other decides, AFTER doing the favor, to let the other person know that he now has an obligation that he will be forced to fulfill, then the person who did the supposed favor is guilty of fraud, and force can rightfully be used against him. If the two came to a deal before the favor, then the favor was not a favor, it was a voluntary transaction.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is that some type of insult that doesn’t translate quite right, or do you mean it literally?
A mother VOLUNTARILY gives birth to a child. Who owes whom in such a situation? I don’t think either should legally owe the other anything. If either, then the mother, who made the conscious decision to give birth, owes the child. If someone does a FAVOR for someone, then it’s a FAVOR. Nothing is owed, and if the person who did the supposed favor for the other decides, AFTER doing the favor, to let the other person know that he now has an obligation that he will be forced to fulfill, then the person who did the supposed favor is guilty of fraud, and force can rightfully be used against him. If the two came to a deal before the favor, then the favor was not a favor, it was a voluntary transaction.[/quote]
I mean literally, or as a mental experiment.
I’m just probing your opinions, not trying to insult you or your mother.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[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.[/quote]
I would agree with this assessment.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[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]
I don’t subscribe to the Utilitarianism ethic. Why should we consider society in our personal lives? What does society do but impose it’s will on the individual. Why should you care about society when society doesn’t care about you?
The basis for reproduction is love not what benefit it may provide to an uncaring unfeeling society.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[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]
I don’t subscribe to the Utilitarianism ethic. Why should we consider society in our personal lives? What does society do but impose it’s will on the individual. Why should you care about society when society doesn’t care about you?
The basis for reproduction is love not what benefit it may provide to an uncaring unfeeling society.
[/quote]
Interpersonal ethics cannot be cogently applied to the political realm, which is decidedly guided by consequentialism. Hard interests will always trump lofty ideals, and rightfully so. Society and the individual are bound to one another, why would you not consider its vitality?
The basis for reproduction is the propagation of the species homo sapien. Love sometimes facilitates that and goes on to underpin parental support for the offspring.
I say let them fuck.