Is it time for a "Liberty Manifesto"?

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
61

I don’t think I need to argue that definition at this point. That word “arbitrary”. What would you say that means? Cause that’s a huge concept.

No. That definition still states that. Well work on that “arbitrary” concept and see if we agree on what it means too. So far no disagreements by me on definitions.

First we need to define arbitrary. I don’t want to jump ahead of ourselves. I am honoring what you are asking. To be able to answer this question without long winded writings on my part I’d rather define that concept and start small. Don’t want to get too over-worked.[:)]

I know. It’s a tough nut to swallow. And I don’t expect you to find an answer that will satisfy you right away. I think it will slowly come about if you want to continue this discussion with me. Also this might be a good time to ask: Do you think life, liberty, and property exist? I do. But I also definitely think those concepts are not being lived to the fullest, and definitely not the way it might have been conceptualized by Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson.

Anytime a transaction between two people occurs in which both exchange voluntarily - that’s anarchy. Nobody was the middleman dictating how the transaction should happen. The two people chose freely on their own. Also every time I have a thought - that’s anarchy. When I freely think without a ruler telling me how to think - that’s anarchy.

Natural law exists. Of course this is debated on this forum, but I see natural law. In other words, I know a universal unbiased truth exists and therefore justice exists.

I’m trying as well.[:D]

62

Burn every bridge! Shun all who do not agree with us! Everybody who believes in the existence of the state is a criminal!

You speak as if you can pick the high-hanging fruit any other way.

How else do you bring criminals to justice than by denying their property “rights”? Or have you created an imaginary defense of how criminals do not have property rights?

Class analysis is an ad-hoc technique that yields very limited knowledge, esspecially when one pretends that there is an iron-clad difference between rulers, and ruled in the modern world where the majority of the ruled do not believe in the legitimacy of the rulers.

63

Real scientists aren’t flippant. Scienz is serius bizness!

64

Oh look who needs some attention in a political thread!

I have never been shy to identify as a libertarian, and I have never been shy about doing outreach. And I have been doing it for several years. What are your credentials as an activist?

65

Why be soft on those who seek to subjugate either explicitly or implicitly?

They are violators of rights and therefore to the point they violate the right is to the point where there right is violated. If I steal ten dollars then proportional justice demands the return of that 10 dollars plus damage.

Right, that is why we see so many anarchist protests on the streets of Washington Ave demanding the end to government.

66

Hello DD5 -

You make a good point about coercion. If you read the manifestion you will see that our intent is not to coerce anybody. To the contrary, the manifesto is up for debate and I again thank you for honoring that with a good point.

The manifesto is fluid, and thus not seeking to coerce anyone. When it is done, it will be simply a set of ideas in book form – and so still up for debate. You are of course free to suggest a coercion clause, other clauses to guard against socialism (which we stand against), or to simply wash your hands of it and walk away.

It is interesting to me that if a) you are all against the manifesto as presented, and b) you are certain that you have the correct point of view, that you would spend any time here at all debating same.

I have also noted a couple of comments suggesting I might look back and laugh after I convert to your point of view. Perhaps. But the arrogance assumed is that a) your point of view is correct, and b) that you will never change your own interpretation.

I believe, that in the end, each forum, movement, and society must set a standard to which a majority adhere for the good of the people. Or, you could simply run free in the fields.

I know you don’t like that analogy, so please tell me how “capitalists” could survive without agreements as to value of goods or services, just barter or monetary exchange, and without referee (the law) in a system for same?

It still is not clear how anarchy, or ano-capitalism, can be practical, efficient, just, and so for the good of the people.

All governance is evil? What about the laws of nature itself – are they evil? Don’t they govern reality? Or did you mean history has shown time and again the evil of humans acting against the will of the people within a government designed to do only those things the people cannot do by themselves.

Can individuals, with no uniform agreement, build a battleship? Please, tell me how. Maybe you are advocating an anarchic world in which battleships are unnecessary? But that’s not reality, is it?

In true Liberty - “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.”
Scott

67

The scientific method cannot be applied to humor therefore it is some kind of odd quirk inherent in the illogical

68

So then you admit that there will be a minority of individuals who are subjugated under your government for the purpose of providing the ‘good of the people’?

[8-|] Bring in the economists!

The government is not law, nor is law the government. Law can be achieved without government therefore government is not necessary concerning a justice system.

Government is not a law of nature. Therefore you state a nonsequitar.

What use would there be for battleships? I’m not saying they couldn’t be built, I merely asking why they would be needed.

69

It is to me. You are making an argument from ignorance again.

I used to be a big supporter of the constitution/minarchy/“good government”/democracy. It is a waste of time. No revolution will be complete with a return to limited government. We’ve learned our lesson from past failures.

70

Perhaps this will help

71

…

More than plenty. Nevertheless, you dodged my entire post.

There’s a difference between being soft, and being both cordial, and enjoyable; if you are not the latter two then you will find that nobody will desire your opinion.

Why is proportional justice true justice? Or is true justice killing whomever violates another’s property?

You act as if every logical person should be an anarchist, which is quite a fault starting position.

72

Lam, your reactionary, value-free value-laden, apolitical political comments, are boring.

73

More than plenty is what? IIRC, you don’t even identify as a libertarian. What is your political ideology? What was your activism?

The last time we tangled in a proper political thread, you banned someone, then gave yourself a timeout from the forum. As much fun as it is to tweak people who are wound too tight, I’m not a sadist, and would rather skip this round of Lam vs. LS.

That said, you’re a grown man, so if you really want to play, I’m game.

74

Juan, your endless insulting is a broken record, and that seems to be the only thing you can do lately.

75

Debaters -

I thank you for the debate, and am unconcerned with any tone. My primary interest is in education, and in learning, and so all that is required are open minds by all involved who share such an interest. Of course a certain structure makes the process much more efficient – a case for just governance, is it not?

As you have noted, I came here freely, and chose the forum and what I would present. Have at it is the correct response.

Wilderness asked me to define “arbitrary”. Here you go (from wikipedia.org): “choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula.”

Recall that the request came in response to the definition of Liberty given: “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.”

So, I now propose to you that a government (much smaller and much more honorable than in present supply) may indeed act on principle to govern for the good of the people. Why is that to be desired? Simply and only for those things individuals cannot do for themselves. I think you know the specific examples, but for point of debate, let’s take a national highway system.

  • Scott
76

I am enjoyable and yet like Nitro said being enjoyable does not mean being soft. I am not willing to be a people pleaser to every individual who comes to these forums, I reserve my ability to be harsh or kind to who I deem deserve it and stay within the agreed upon contract of these forums.

Because any less is not just nor is anymore. It is not just to kill a man for merely stealing a pen, nor is it just to make a murder pay only 10 dollars for their homicidal actions.

Given that there is no logic in any other ideology, a logical person should be an anarchist. I am willing to hear how you think there is logic in let us say ‘Conservatism’ or ‘Socialism’.

77

Why de-rail the thread?

Not aimed @ you LibertyPatriot

78

all monopoly involuntary government is despotic. how could it be otherwise?

can a monopoly involuntary governmental class ruling over innocents possibly be benevolent?

79

the good of the people is to not be under the heel. so allow them their liberty. they have a right to it.

80

What is the good of the people? Does it involve individual liberty?

What can the state do that individuals cannot?

The roads, the roads, they always start with the roads. There is no reason why a national highway system is needed, and if it is, there is no reason why it cannot be built privately either by one operator, or a series of operators with connected highways.