Yes, because it’s always the other side which is in the wrong. After all, the nazis were just protecting their wives from the evil Poles.
Maybe you should take some time off, Giles. Might help your attitude.
I never said anybody was right or wrong, I said they should be honoured for fightin for what they believed and putting their lives on the line for their friends and family. Perhaps you’re just pissed off because not everybody buys into the line of the “true-believers” that soldiers are a priori bad (and involved in perfomative contradictions) and that Rothbard was not infallible.
Why is that honorable?
No, they put their lives on the line for the government officials. Not very honorable.
Because it shows you’re willing to put your money where you mouth is. Most self proclaimed “radical libertarians” on these boards are cowards. They profess their hatred of the state and go about destroying it by blogging. Good job guys, I hear Obama is about to capitulate and give you what you want. That’s all very well, don’t get me wrong, but Austrians love to speak about revealed preference, and if this is the case I’m not so sure you can legitimately say you hate the state. Your actions say otherwise.
I don’t fall into this trap, because I just don’t really care about the state.
I’d be willing to guess that protecting government officials isn’t high on the list of most soldiers. I daresay various ideals and values they hold rank higher. I’m glad you didn’t question whether or not it’s honourable to die for your friends and family, but then again, perhaps your group of friends doesn’t solely consist of weirdos with fake Russian accents who think it’s moral to smoke. Although, that might explain why the Randroids think it’s immoral to die for their friends, look at who they associate with.
This is precisely what I am talking about…
This is because they are not warriors… they are not prepared for war…
If someone believes all Muslims are evil, and he or she is willing to put his or her life on the line to go and kill them, then that is not honorable. It is called stupid.
As if dying for a cause is the only honorable thing to do or the only way to bring about change.
But it is what they are doing. It is irrelevant if they believe they are defending their friends and families, because they usually are not.
I neither said, nor implied such as thing, my point was merely that if you are willing to die for a cause in which you believe, it can be called honourable. I don’t see what’s so difficult to understand about my point, much less when you applaud people’s acts of bravery against the state. Of course, I think there’s a good reason you question whether or not it’s honourable to die for a cause whilst limiting your anti-state activism to sending letters to the nearest politicians.
Here’s the thing, I’m not saying that I think the wars America is waging are good, I don’t. As a rule, I’m against war, albeit to a lesser extent than most here. And yet, I can still support those people out there who have been lied to by those who they trust and are stuck in Iraq because of it. I’d hazard a guess that you’d have nothing but praise for the libertarian revolutions. Is this is so, the assumption is that you are completely correct in your view of the world, which is the same assumption held by soldier in Iraq. The difference is that they’re willing to put their life on the line for what they believe to be correct, you blog about it.
That doesn’t show that freedom is alienable. Many fight out of some misguided sense of nationalism. If your qualificaition for slavery is that we must either do what the government says or be thrown in jail, then every one who is ruled in the world is a slave.
correct liberty is not a good… it is not a transferable tangibility. A person could write a book about it or talk about it, but liberty is timeless, abstract, and not potential matter. It is actualized matter in the form of a person that much is for sure.
Uh, yes you did.
But it is not. Again, dying trying to kill people that are Muslims, because you think all Muslims are evil, is not honorable. But you go on calling dying for being stupid honorable.
The state practices mass extortion and slavery. So yes, I applaud those that defy the state. Not one soldier in the history of the United States has died for freedom. They have all died for the state, the specific organization that commits mass atrocities. However, there are those in New Hampshire committing civil disobedience, and actually enduring the abuse of the state, to try and help gain more freedom. I find those people much more honorable than any soldier in the history of the world.
And, if I am able to move there in a few years, I may get an opportunity to commit civil disobedience as well. I find Gandhi to be the most honorable person in history that I know of., not because of his death, but because of his life.
As I have stated in another thread, education is power. Fighting and dying is not. But you seem to think that the only honorable thing one can do is fight and die. On one hand you say that you do not think dying is the only honorable thing one can do, but then you go on to make fun of me for sending letters to local politicians.
@ Byz, does that mean slavery is ok as long as the slave is comfortable?
@ AC and Wild, Freedom is not inalienable, sort of, the problem is that the idealism is that all humans are free, some, like Byz, will choose slavery, so long as he is the house slave and not the field slave…
I believe that all humans have liberty, though many do not have the self respect to see it, and as they do not respect their own liberty, the do not respect others, and that is where this mindset comes in, where slavery is acceptable. These people cannot live in a free society, as they are the first to state there needs to be a law against ________, and blank is whatever they do not like about other people…
You cannot choose to become a slave for like I stated, slavery is an involuntary state. Therefore Byz will choose to have an advisor/mentor who will governn him as to what is best and what isn’t while still retaining the final decision making.
Exactly, if thrown in prison we do not say or imply ‘hey give me back my freedom because you have taken it away from me’. We say ‘stop extering your force upon me which denies me the enacting of my freedom.’
OK, I see how this is going, so given the general strategy of your replies and go along with it and win the debate:
I win. See, I can ignore and misrepresent what you’re actually saying too!.
I think calling him by his first name might be a bit rude giving the fact you don’t know him, Mr Antine might be a more appropriate way to address him.
You, who are a third party, have no say in the pleasantries I afford to other individuals. Kindly keep your comments about my mannerisms to yourself unless I am addressing you personally.
So I can opt out of government?
So long as the advisor/mentor can imprison you for not following arbitrary rules, it is slavery, his choice is either to follow rules or not, the ruler (master) does not come into this choice, the master was chosen by his location…
I did not misquote you.. So no, you are not doing the same thing as I am. Apparently, you are easily confused.
That’s what we are trying to do.
You have to elaborate on this point because it is not making sense.
He can choose to do that, but he can choose to not do that (though his choice to rid the slavery may at this point only change by using brute force). That choice to be a slave or not a slave is liberty. Even if his master chained him, the person could shout out in defiance. The master could tear out his vocal cords, but the slave can still think it. The master could tear out his brain, but the slave would be dead. The only way to rid liberty is kill the person, but that’s only the liberty in that particular person. But now that’s murder and not slavery so that’s a different topic.
Edit: This is also why liberty, person (life), and property are natural rights… they are “of” the person.