And what’s all this invasion talk?
What borders are being invaded?
Borders only exist through force.
Property lines only exist through force. Who here created the matter that makes up the soil on “your land?”
Or, at least the threat.
Sloth, I think you’re just pissed off that the narrator made a derogatory reference to “intellectual sloth”. 
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth, I think you’re just pissed off that the narrator made a derogatory reference to “intellectual sloth”. ;)[/quote]
Am I that transparent? =(
[quote]mbdix wrote:
The way I feel about it is, I think it’s everyone’s born right to Liberty. There could be many factors of why people might not be able to ask for help in this scenario. The “Liberator” comes in takes out the ruler that has oppressed the people, provides security for a while to make sure that the people have a chance to vote and establish a Government to their wishes and then leaves. If that country votes to go back to an oppressive government, then so be it. But, the “Liberator” gives the people a chance to have Liberty.
As I have just wrote that I do see the flaws in it. I do see how being the shot callers of a powerful nation of ‘free’ citizens would be a massively difficult job.
I can say that as much as don’t like how my Government does some things, I am happy and thankful to be born in America. And proud to be American[/quote]
I’m confused: first you mention that you believe everyone has a right to liberty, then you say, “If that country votes to go back to an oppressive government, then so be it.” Which is it? Does everyone have a right to liberty, or does only the majority? I would say that if someone wishes to work for someone else without being paid, then he has that right. If someone wishes to give another his property, then he has that right. If someone wishes to kill himself, then he has that right. However, if there are 100 people in a room, then neither 51 nor 99 of them have the right to kill the minority.
At what point does the liberator decide the liberated people are free?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like not having “free-men” decide they can hunt this or that native Florida species until extinction. Or run their boats wide-open in manatee zones.
I like roads.
I like courts.
All supplied through force.[/quote]
x2
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like not having “free-men” decide they can hunt this or that native Florida species until extinction. Or run their boats wide-open in manatee zones.
I like roads.
I like courts.
All supplied through force.[/quote]
x2
[/quote]
So you two(and many others, I’m sure) could pay for these things! Just because rape can create a child doesn’t make rape a NECESSARY element of conception, does it?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like not having “free-men” decide they can hunt this or that native Florida species until extinction. Or run their boats wide-open in manatee zones.
I like roads.
I like courts.
All supplied through force.[/quote]
x2
[/quote]
So you two(and many others, I’m sure) could pay for these things! Just because rape can create a child doesn’t make rape a NECESSARY element of conception, does it?[/quote]
rape is the violence it is not the sex and I personally do not agree with all definitions of rape ( statutory ) specifically . I think in many cases it is a crime for an older person to have sex with a minor but if the age is too close i see it as only natural
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like not having “free-men” decide they can hunt this or that native Florida species until extinction. Or run their boats wide-open in manatee zones.
I like roads.
I like courts.
All supplied through force.[/quote]
x2
[/quote]
So you two(and many others, I’m sure) could pay for these things! Just because rape can create a child doesn’t make rape a NECESSARY element of conception, does it?[/quote]
You can too.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Just because rape can create a child doesn’t make rape a NECESSARY element of conception, does it?[/quote]
No, but I suppose it could always be an option. Empirically it’s just riskier/messier sex. Biology doesn’t care about the “moral” value of it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like not having “free-men” decide they can hunt this or that native Florida species until extinction. Or run their boats wide-open in manatee zones.
I like roads.
I like courts.
All supplied through force.[/quote]
x2
[/quote]
So you two(and many others, I’m sure) could pay for these things! Just because rape can create a child doesn’t make rape a NECESSARY element of conception, does it?[/quote]
rape is the violence it is not the sex and I personally do not agree with all definitions of rape ( statutory ) specifically . I think in many cases it is a crime for an older person to have sex with a minor but if the age is too close i see it as only natural
[/quote]
And force/violence is not necessary for any of the things listed by sloth. It is just something we have been brainwashed into believing is necessary for the sun to rise and set.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
The way I feel about it is, I think it’s everyone’s born right to Liberty. There could be many factors of why people might not be able to ask for help in this scenario. The “Liberator” comes in takes out the ruler that has oppressed the people, provides security for a while to make sure that the people have a chance to vote and establish a Government to their wishes and then leaves. If that country votes to go back to an oppressive government, then so be it. But, the “Liberator” gives the people a chance to have Liberty.
As I have just wrote that I do see the flaws in it. I do see how being the shot callers of a powerful nation of ‘free’ citizens would be a massively difficult job.
I can say that as much as don’t like how my Government does some things, I am happy and thankful to be born in America. And proud to be American[/quote]
I’m confused: first you mention that you believe everyone has a right to liberty, then you say, “If that country votes to go back to an oppressive government, then so be it.” Which is it? Does everyone have a right to liberty, or does only the majority? I would say that if someone wishes to work for someone else without being paid, then he has that right. If someone wishes to give another his property, then he has that right. If someone wishes to kill himself, then he has that right. However, if there are 100 people in a room, then neither 51 nor 99 of them have the right to kill the minority.
At what point does the liberator decide the liberated people are free?[/quote]
Hence, the flaws I recognize in my post. There are other flaws within my scenario as well. I don’t claim to have all the answers regarding Life, and Liberty. But, I do believe it is every person’s birth right to have Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And I believe OP’s video on the Philosophy of Liberty is dead on accurate and without flaws.
I also agree with you about what you wrote about working, property. If that is indeed that person’s desire. I do think if a person is wanting to kill themselves another person should try and reason with that person to stop them. I don’t think if a person is wanting or trying to kill themselves we should just let them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Just because rape can create a child doesn’t make rape a NECESSARY element of conception, does it?[/quote]
No, but I suppose it could always be an option. Empirically it’s just riskier/messier sex. Biology doesn’t care about the “moral” value of it.
[/quote]
Outstanding observation! Rape can produce a child just like consensual sex-only in a messier way. Taxation can produce courts and roads just like the market-only in a messier way.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
And force/violence is not necessary for any of the things listed by sloth. It is just something we have been brainwashed into believing is necessary for the sun to rise and set.[/quote]
Sure didn’t see “free” boaters doing much for the manatee before the government stepped in.
And borders and ‘private’ land always require force (or the threat of).
Let’s just use “private” property.
Who here created the earth, water, and air? It takes someone claiming ‘ownership,’ exclusive ability to manage and use those resources. Resources they had no hand in creating. This at least requires the threat of force. “Defense” of “private” property.
And how does a private court work?
You pay a monthly fee to one, and then turn it on me?
I then point out that I’m not in contract with your private court, therefore, it has no jurisdiction over me. Unless you’re saying that I’m somehow involuntarily bound to its judgements and sentences. But that kind of defeats the purpose…
In fact, maybe I have another…provider. And my provider tells yours to buzz off. So their company security forces go to war. Including whatever additional private armies our wealth affords us. Of course, one of us might not be able to afford either.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sure didn’t see “free” boaters doing much for the manatee before the government stepped in.
And borders and ‘private’ land always require force (or the threat of).
Let’s just use “private” property.
Who here created the earth, water, and air? It takes someone claiming ‘ownership,’ exclusive ability to manage and use those resources. Resources they had no hand in creating. This at least requires the threat of force. “Defense” of “private” property.
[/quote]
Ah, but if all property was privately owned, then you, Sloth, could purchase the waterways in which the manatees live, then shut down all boat access.
Surely it is not this hard to understand the difference between offensive and defensive force?
When a group of 10 children is turned loose in a toyroom, who “owns” each toy? The first child to take possession of it. From then on, toys can only change hands by theft, charity, and voluntary transaction. I hope we can agree that attempted theft/offensive force can be justifiably met with whatever defensive force is necessary to repel it.
Rights are completely faith based. It naturally follows that any supposed moral obligation to respect such rights are also faith-based. Outside of faith, it’s all a matter of force. Who lives. Who dies. Private or state ownership. In the end, none of the options being right or wrong.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
When a group of 10 children is turned loose in a toyroom, who “owns” each toy? The first child to take possession of it. [/quote]
To take possession of it, exclusively for himself, requires force. It is just as easily “theft.” The other children are just as correct to claim it wasn’t his to take “possession” of. That the community, the group, the state, has just as much claim to it as he.