Don’t be so hard on yourself.
Doing meth, and having gay sex with a male prostitute, while holding a job preaching the Lord’s message to millions on TV isn’t enough to get you kicked out of camp these days.
B.T.W. I’m writing this while Sepultura is playing at volume setting 11 (yes, mine goes to 11). They don’t count because they are from Brazil, so it’s cultural music, not metal.
What’s one of them then? Is it a kinda perty unicorn?
Really? I find most statsts either give me the utilitarian "it mist be done sort of thing or say indeed the good old stanbye of “rights” as in entitled to be given at the expense of everyone else… Ahh good old liberals/socialists
That doesn’t make sense. Black Metal is from Norway and Sweden, so technically that is also cultural music. Most metal is pretty much foreign, the U.S metal bands are the worse.
What I don;t understand is, without the Government the Churches would again become the States. What is stopping Churches from waging Holy Wars against other Religions now? Even if that isn’t the case, then Churches would be regulators, the censorshipers, and sometimes the aggressors. Also, in a Cap-An society EVERYONE would have to be religious in order for morality to function without law, but this would then again become a Theocracy.
This is one of the reasons I support Minarchy and not Anarchy.
Um, what?
If one of the reasons you support Minarchy over Anarchy is that people can’t be moral without religion, then I tell you to question what you believe in. There are many, many, many, many, many Atheists, such as myself, who have their own set of morals such as “Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t initiate force, don’t smack people, don’t lie, etc.” I’d be willing to bet people had morals before religious texts were around, you know.
In Anarchy, people would tolerate theocratic governments the same way they treat current governments: they wouldn’t. Although, there isn’t much of a difference between the two, is there?
No. I do not care whether you respect any “statists”. I used the adjective “respectable” merely so my statement would include only the subset of “statists” who ‘mean well’.
What are you even talking about?
Apparently anarcho-capitalism is “gov by corporations.”
“without a gov to create and maintain laws (including individual rights) and check the power of corporations, you’ll just have large corporations creating and maintaining their own laws”
Most of the statists that I talk to these days say that we need the welfare state because with out it everyone will starve and we’ll all die and they read “rights” as in things which are granted to people by the state EG. The right to housing, the idea that because people have a right to housing or whatever we need to take funds from productive people and grant these people housing, they totally disregard things like property rights for “socialist” or liberal rights.
Don’t think for a moment that this movement doesn’t have strong religious and devotional aspects. Replace the concept of deity with that of the free market or freedom and you’ll see the similarities.
Indeed; I won’t think about it for even a moment.
If they “totally disregard things like property rights” but they “totally regards things like […] “socialist” or liberal rights”, they still, whether you disagree or agree about their interpretation, “regard” and attempt to uphold what you and they call “rights”. If person X “totally regards things like […] “socialist” […] rights” and person Y “refuses to associate with anyone who would use violence against another who wasn’t directly infringing upon thier rights”, would person Y not be able to argue with person X because of that reason?
Scenario 1:
Person X: I refuse to associate with any person who condones the use of violence of one person against one other person who has yet to “directly infring[e] upon [his] rights” as I define them.
Person Y: I believe that the demarcation of the set of “rights” of any individual is A.
Person X: I believe that the demarcation of the set of “rights” of any individual is B.
Person Y: I guess that we cannot argue together, then.
[the argument ends]
Scenario 2:
Person X: I refuse to associate with any person who condones the use of violence of one person against one other person who has yet to “directly infring[e] upon [his] rights” as he defines them.
Person Y: I believe that the demarcation of the set of “rights” of any individual is A.
[the argument continues]
Person X: I disagree with that demarcation because P.
Person Y: I disagree with that counterargument because Q.
[et cetera]
I hope that my point is clear at this point. If you believe that your revision of his original statement causes you to have to refuse to argue with a blatant socialist, you are adding an implicit phrase “as I define them” to your statement. If you consistently uphold such a principle, you would refuse to argue with any person who holds any views which differ from your views whatsoever.
It is therefore an example of circular reasoning to defend your views via an appeal to a set of “rights”. For, from person to person, the set of “rights” differs. If some one disagrees with you, you cannot merely appeal to that set of “rights”, you must also defend that set of “rights”. The “NAP” does not justify libertarianism, it merely attempts to summarize libertarianism. You cannot merely appeal to the “NAP”, you must also defend the “NAP”.
no, since refuting the NAP is self-refuting.
Nothing, other than human decency.
And even if there were some theocracies–so long as everyone who lived there chose to do so, there’s no problem.
Why?
If I were to attack you, I would not be implicitly disputing that you, atleast before the attack, own your body. But such action would violate the NAP.
If I were to advocate that one part of the population should strike down an other part of the population, I would not be implicitly disputing that each individual which belongs to the other part of the population owns his/her body. But, if I were to succeed in implementing such a system, such an accomplishment would violate the NAP.
Human decency does not exist, so therefore An-Cap cannot be possible.
The writer ignored …that women’s rights are distorted because of law, and called for restrictions on how fast men make it to high executive positions in business’ because the percentage of women in top management is a lot less. But he ignores that Businsess/Management is less appealing to women, not because its man dominated and businesss are discrimatory. If he doesn’t realize that it was laws that made gender unequal in the first place, then he has no business writing on the issue.
Damn, I hate liberals, that pissed me off so much. /rant
I used to be a hardcore socialist/communist, man it was really easy to convert people at that time. They had already been indoctrinated to think like socialists. Now all my friends are socialists and I have become a libertarian…great.
My mother is a socialist/feminist activist and discussions with her usually end with me destroying her arguments on every level and she ignoring it and talking something about hungry people in africa. Within 5 minutes we’re shouting at each other lol.
My brother doesn’t care a thing about politics and will probably work for the government in the near future. My father is some kind of conservative + Working in a nuclear plant makes him immune to leftist propaganda I think.
But in general I seem to have no talent as a libertarian propagandist. I tell them why they are wrong and they ignore it, I think people don’t care too much about logic. Instead it’s about how they ‘feel’ about stuff. I don’t work like that so I have trouble converting them. Maybe I should use bullshit psychology on people like Stefan Molyneux, argh.
In liberty is where the real compassion evolves to help those in Africa, etc… If people are forced to help others that’s not true morality. They are not acting of their own free-will, meaning, they are not actually trying to help. They are only being forced to help and initiated force to help always means somebody is getting hurt. So it’s contrary to their true intentions, such as your mother, who I believe has true intentions to help others.
My brother was going the way of communism only recently…lol I think he’s a bit late for that. He really didn’t have anything to grasp onto. He’s getting away from that a bit, but he hasn’t fully grasped the fact that to use the government to force their own self-interests on people is truly brutish. He used to start that stuff with me right away about helping other people and do I simply look at people that are starving and say they are not being responsible enough and are simply being out-competed in the free market. In liberty nothing stops anybody from helping each other. I don’t know why people think if they really want to help others - nothing is stopping them. In liberty is when people are ONLY helped. In coercion is when somebody is ALWAYS hurt.