Do I Qualify for This Club?

[Spideynw]

@Chris

If you do not wish to live in a society that taxes then leave that society. slaves are forced to stay and work you are not.

Slaves are free to kill themselves. So no, they are not forced to stay, using your logic.

[Spideynw]

Chris,

Welcome to the world of following a concept to its conclusion. You state that you came her to just talk about the Disabilities Act. The problem is that the Disabilities Act is a creature of an unjust government. For us, any discussion of government will lead to the discussion of the libertarian principle, the non-aggression principle. The logical conclusion of the non-aggression principle is that government without consent is aggression, as such, it cannot be defended intellectually. It is a big pill to swallow. Some like to refer to it in terms of the Matrix, it is the red pill.

I was what I would consider a conservative Democrat just five years ago. When I found this site, I was what I would call a “minarchist”. I hope you will read some of the wonderful material on the site.

[Paul]

@Chris

After doing a little more reading I discovered that the Libertarian movement does in fact generally not support the Americans with Disabilities Act nor does it go very far in securing rights for people with disabilities.

You mean “rights” different from the rights of non-disabled people? True. Everybody has the same rights.

@Chris

For one thing, from what I have read the majority of libertarians are pro-life.

I don’t know about that. (Note that the vast majority of people who call themselves “libertarian” are not very libertarian!)

@Chris

Presumably, because euthanasia is illegal one would again deny this person the right to die when they are mature enough to make the choice for themselves

I can’t see how euthanasia could be illegal in a libertarian society (as long as it’s distinguishable from murder, which is easy enough)

@Chris

Number two, the beginning of the Declaration of Independence only lists three unalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It says nothing about the right to property being unalienable.

Well, the original line was indeed “property”, but what does that have to do with libertarianism?

@Chris

Does a man’s right to property take higher priority over my right to pursuit of happiness inasmuch as my happiness relies on the ability to be able to travel freely with my friends and family and experience all the beauty and majesty this country has to offer its able-bodied citizens?

Depends. Do you want to rob that man of his property in order to finance your travel? Then clearly yes. You don’t get to rob people! If not, I can’t see how the two are related.

@Chris

Let’s assume also that the principles presumptions about the generosity of men are correct in that 80% of private companies decided for charity or profit to accommodate disabilities. A man in a wheelchair is touring a city he has never been to before and realizes with some urgency that he needs to use the bathroom. He hastily enters the nearest building to use their bathroom. They inform them that there are no accommodations. He goes back and forth across the street from one building to another and gets the same response. Eventually his time has run out and there he sits embarrassed and ashamed as he defecates on himself in the street for all to see.

Assume a man on his feet is touring this city and wants a bathroom. He goes into the first building, and they say “sorry, we’re not a public toilet”…he goes from one building to another, but nobody will let him use their toilet…

@Chris

Libertarians have to accept a certain level and form of taxation in order to finance the government

Why? We don’t want to finance government; we want it gone!

@Chris

I know the principle assumes people would be naturally charitable enough to make up for all of the needs of the disabled and elderly in this country but that is a big assumption.

Why? The same people vote for the government which institutes these measures…

[Paul]

@Chris

The point I’m trying to make is that I believe we should all have the right to equal access.

Equal access to what? Other people’s property? You think everyone should have equal access to your house? If they’re passing by and feel like a snack, they can just come into your kitchen and find something to eat? If they’re tired, they can take a nap in your bed? (I expect you’re making some sort of distinction between homes and businesses, but what do you think the difference is? There is none!)

(PS: please terminate the quoted material before inserting your replies; you make it look like the person you’re replying to said your words, and you said nothing)

[Paul]

@Chris

the majority of society has determined that the government owes me certain protections. The country has too many people In it for everyone to agree all the time. Just because some people on the fringe do not agree is no reason to dismantle the system altogether. On the other hand, if they can get enough people on their side and that is all the more reason to consider their plight. Somewhere along the way enough people ended up being on my side.

What kind of argument is that? Hitler was elected, therefore Auschwitz was a Good Idea?

[Quadfather]

I will conclude by saying this. It seems to me that even if I were to agree with non-aggression to the extent which you people do there will always be someone who wants to take it a step further. I.e. including animals. They would argue that we cannot cut down trees to build our homes because trees are their homes and that would be an initiation of force against their property or something like that. I imagine we could go even further with it if we wanted to and include insects, vegetation, bacteria and so on. After all, basically it has been argued in here that it is as black-and-white as saying no one has the right to initiate force against another unless attacked with no exception. Not even for the purpose of preserving ones own life.

I am sure there will be counterarguments to what I’ve said and I will read them certainly but I will not be posting any more responses on this thread. I appreciate the lively debate that we have had and I wish you all well.

feel free to have the last word[:D]

[Quadfather]

Alright I’ll take it LOL after doing a little reading I think it’s safe to say I am a Consequentialist Libertarian. Same as Mises.

[DanielMuffinburg]

Lol. I’ve made that same challange to people who support animal rights.

[Spideynw]

@Chris

It seems to me that even if I were to agree with non-aggression to the extent which you people do there will always be someone who wants to take it a step further.

Most of us agree that plants and animals do not have rights. Some of us even argue that infants/small children do not have rights. There are plenty of threads about rights if you do a search.

I am sorry to see you leave and unwilling to continue the discussion.