then you should be a libertarian. we will help you [;)]
it is a ‘paradox’ (not really) that laissez-faire is superior to interventionism in overcoming poverty.
Lesson One of Libertarianism: Rights are based on reason.
And which way you decide based on the “consequences” will of course depend on the emotive reaction each produces, if any at all…
I appreciate your answers. Please don’t think that I’m trolling. I’m just not used to accepting claims without asking critical questions. Maybe I’ll not accept all your libertarian viewpoints, but I hope to understand them better.
I think people defined rights because they found it was a good way to ensure safety for themselves. That is reasonable, but still based on emotions.
Actually I would consider that consequencialism, not rights-derived from emotion.
You use your emotions to determine if a given consequence is good or bad.
You can use your reason to determine that just the same.
I would disagree there.
Why?
Because I don’t see how something can be rightt or wrong if we eliminate emotions from this world.
LOL! You are acting as though objective ethics is far more obvious than your performance in debates would indicate. You haven’t even been able to establish the coherence of objective ethics, let alone its truth, so you should reconsider being so arrogant to so baldly claim that as “lesson one” of ALL libertarianism. I suppose Lesson Two of Libertarianism would be “Promote Eudaimonia!” and Lesson Three would be “Left Libertarians Rock!”
Objective, libertarian ethics outside of a theistic system do not exist.
Whether a conquestionalist or deontological, the reason rights are established are because of human logic and reason to some degree. Or are you of the mind that rights are divine edicts like mana from heaven?
No lesson two is that High C fruit punch has objective value and lesson three is that the afterlife consists of Jesus singing lead vocals for Lynard Skynard and he has an angel band and we’re all in the front row hammered.
Actually I would state that objective libertarian ethics within a theistic system are nonexistent.
I’m from the NR school that finds the emotions and reason may act in unison, or in some form or fashion find expression. They each play their part in being human.
That does nothing to prove the existence of objective, libertarian ethics.
It’s possible. Look at act utilitarians.
Except that theistic systems are not objective. In other words, your little assertion is pure nonsense - which is line with theism, I guess.
(but I’m glad that the FSM has given meaning to the concepts of moral right and wrong)
Says the man who merely said the opposite of what I said.