Chris, it is a lot to take in all at once. I think sometimes people here forget how long it took each of us individually to move to the positions we currently hold.
You should be very proud of yourself for sticking with this, and at least hearing out different perspectives.
With that said, Chris, I recommend you read Murray N. Rothbard’s For a New Liberty.
Once Again That Is an Extreme. I Grow Tired of People Asking Me If I’m Going to Poop in Their Living Room, Eat the Cake That They Cooked, or Expect Them to Adhere to My Marriage Contract. the Day I Do Any One of Those Things or the Law Proposes That I Should Be Able to Then We Can Discuss It.
thats exactly the topic isnt it?
It wasn’t when I got here. I did not realize the people here do not believe in law. I came here thinking the goal is to minimize government not do away with it altogether.
you are thinking that law is ‘legal positivist’ law.
you are thinking that the institutions which provide ‘harmonization’ services between sovereign individuals are good. noble and government whether or not they are insitutions competiting for custom on the freemarket (voluntary ‘government’) or a monopolistic granfalloon criminal organisation (involuntary government)
if you wish to learn how to think otherwise, stick around, ask questions , etc.
greetings.
From reading what you have written, it easy to see that you haven’t read anything about libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism. Ron Paul doesn’t count, and after reading Murray Rothbard, you’ll understand why. But, please, I recommend you take a break from arguing with us and read Rothbard’s For a New Liberty. Here is a link to the complete book: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp Included in that page are links to the PDF version, MP3 CD, and more.
With that said, Chris, I recommend you read Murray N. Rothbard’s For a New Liberty.
thank you very much. I’m glad to be here. I will add this book to my reading list
I will add it to my list
That is not what I’m thinking. I initially was defending an act. The ADA specifically and then still I was only defending its existence not the absurd extreme to which it’s been taken. Government institutions be they voluntary or otherwise require capital to exist. I just believe the government has more responsibility than enforcing contracts made between men
We are big fans of law here. Our positions are fairly close to Ron Paul’s. We just see his position as being more nuanced than strictly Constitutional. But this is the Mises community, which is different from the Institute proper, which is what I believe Ron Paul was referring to with The Revolution. We’re definitely radicals in here, not that the main site isn’t radical, but this is probably the most radical libertarian forum around.
If you enjoy video or audio, there are a ton of resources here, including For A New Liberty available in one or both of those formats.
an act which is an example of legal positivism.
ok.
you think involuntary government has respobisiblities to you and citizens? i would agree , but only that they are responsible for their crimes. to make them responsible for your care and well-being is sheer madness. (go Mises!)
Argumentum ad populum.
Love it or hate it that is the world we live in
‘might makes right’ etc.
i suppose your pean to rationalism and law was only superficial
What process? You’re being too vague. Here’s what Jack said:
I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Could you point out the “process” you are referring to here?
In reply to the question I would say that the disabled could certainly fare no worse under a libertarian system, if only because a rising tide lifts all boats. Sure, the comforting guarantees and programs would vanish, but you could present that argument against Libertarianism, and indeed Capitalism, at every level. For the vast majority of disabled people improvements in medical technology, access to private charity and social advancement would more than offset the potential for some business not having a wheel-chair friendly lavatory.
Well then you are not really possessing of the vision to become a libertarian. If you concede to, or even recognise the relevance of, popular opinion you are a collectivist. The rationale for libertarianism does not derive solely out of the merits of Capitalism or its unparalleled power to ameliorate lives, but principally from the belief that the individual should determine the course of his own life. If you cannot accept that fundamental concept, you should abandon any attempt to get technical of libertarianism in practice
lol… [:P] I know Daniel, can’t remember off-hand where the others came from, but Daniel was asking you a legal question in reference to the Marriage Contract. Not that you are accepted or not to adhere to the Marriage Contract - he was trying to find an analogous example that might help you understand in more familiar terms.[:D] I’m pretty sure of that. He wasn’t asking if YOU would any longer adhere to it. He was asking if a marriage - in fact - any contract in general - if other people sign it BUT not you. Are you obligated to adhere to said contract?
You wrote a long passage about being disabled in a city and being unable to find an accessible toilet, and therefore having an embarrassing accident. Do you remember this? My question to you is, by what right are you using anyone’s toilet but your own? What is the difference between the toilet in my house and the toilet in my restaurant? What is the difference between some thug with a gun forcing me to install an accessible toilet in my house and some thug with a gun forcing me to install an accessible toilet in my restaurant?
It could, and probably should, be argued that it is in my best interest to install an accessible toilet in my restaurant, as it would lead to increased business. More people with disabilities would become patron, and I would avoid boycotts by those who stick up for people with disabilities. People like me, actually. I certainly would not frequent an establishment that discriminated.
There is a world of difference between “Civil Rights” at the business end of a gun and voluntary openness. The surest way to discourage brotherhood is to legislate it.