Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=theunbrainwashed;20045049]Your title is misinforming. You are assuming that these people are anarchists, which the super vast majority or not.[/quote[
Anyway, is not the concept that interference with individual choice coercive? That rights are derived not by governments but by natural laws? Is this not the foundational premiss of the most influential libertarian philosopher of the 20th Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia? If this is the case, what right does a government have to restrict the natural flow of people to choose where they wish? Was that not the basis for the Libertarian Party's platform that, in essence calls for the dismantling of restrictions to immigration, a platform that in 1972 even called for the abolition of the immigration service? If this is the case then does not national sovereignty take a back seat to natural law, which I assume applies to all of mankind and not just Americans?
You are free to make all the sense you like on your own terms and without infringing on another. The moment you make such attempt on another, you will suffer the consequences.
And that is the foundation of natural law, natural liberty, and classical liberalism
And that is precisely why it is so useless. These boundaries are fine to giggle about on internet forums, but in real life need to be defined, and precisely, by laws. And enforcement of laws is the province of government.
Big governments and nations and nationalism have given us Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al and all their atrocities (tens of millions of people slaughtered in just the past century) on top of atrocities by so-called democratic governments (slaughter of the Native Americans, slavery, all the actions in Africa and India and Asia by imperialist Europeans, Imperial Japan, etc.). People who are worried without such things as a petty crook or local murderer ignore the bigger picture. At this time there's a very real threat of nuclear weapons destroying the world, it only takes one crazy man or nation to do it. Governments and nations have made no one safer. People are less free today and more at risk of previously unheard of destruction because of governments, nations, etc.
Anyway, is not the concept that interference with individual choice coercive? That rights are derived not by governments but by natural laws? Is this not the foundational premiss of the most influential libertarian philosopher of the 20th Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia? If this is the case, what right does a government have to restrict the natural flow of people to choose where they wish? Was that not the basis for the Libertarian Party's platform that, in essence calls for the dismantling of restrictions to immigration, a platform that in 1972 even called for the abolition of the immigration service? If this is the case then does not national sovereignty take a back seat to natural law, which I assume applies to all of mankind and not just Americans?
Libertarianism of today is the liberalism of the 18th century.
Big governments and nations and nationalism have given us Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al and all their atrocities (tens of millions of people slaughtered in just the past century) on top of atrocities by so-called democratic governments (slaughter of the Native Americans, slavery, all the actions in Africa and India and Asia by imperialist Europeans, Imperial Japan, etc.). People who are worried without such things as a petty crook or local murderer ignore the bigger picture. At this time there's a very real threat of nuclear weapons destroying the world, it only takes one crazy man or nation to do it. Governments and nations have made no one safer. People are less free today and more at risk of previously unheard of destruction because of governments, nations, etc.
Big governments and nations and nationalism have given us Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al and all their atrocities (tens of millions of people slaughtered in just the past century) on top of atrocities by so-called democratic governments (slaughter of the Native Americans, slavery, all the actions in Africa and India and Asia by imperialist Europeans, Imperial Japan, etc.). People who are worried without such things as a petty crook or local murderer ignore the bigger picture. At this time there's a very real threat of nuclear weapons destroying the world, it only takes one crazy man or nation to do it. Governments and nations have made no one safer. People are less free today and more at risk of previously unheard of destruction because of governments, nations, etc.
Add to that fact that what has killed more people in the history of mankind? The plague? No. Big government has.
Anyway, is not the concept that interference with individual choice coercive? That rights are derived not by governments but by natural laws? Is this not the foundational premiss of the most influential libertarian philosopher of the 20th Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia? If this is the case, what right does a government have to restrict the natural flow of people to choose where they wish? Was that not the basis for the Libertarian Party's platform that, in essence calls for the dismantling of restrictions to immigration, a platform that in 1972 even called for the abolition of the immigration service? If this is the case then does not national sovereignty take a back seat to natural law, which I assume applies to all of mankind and not just Americans?
There are hardcore libertarians that believe that, but I believe they are a fringe element of the libertarian movement. I have a strong sense of national sovereignty and the integrity of our borders. This is the one position I don't agree with on Ron Paul when it comes to economics because he also believes in free trade, but if the kind that benefits small businesses and the like, not multinational corporations. I do believe some protectionism needs to exist but not to the point where wars are fought over resources
My core philosophy is that government needs to exist to do those vital things that private industry won't because there's no profit motive. Weather. Air administration. EPA. Military. Basic schooling in low income communities. Etc.
Also, govt. needs to exist to regulate to an extent necessary to maintain constitutional and core freedoms and for all. Like not letting Citibank rape the rest of us. (and if Citibank does, let them fail).
And finally to do things like social security, which take money from a person when they're younger and pay it back when they're older and not able to earn. People would like to save, but they don't. They can't. They won't. So unless we want a lot of old people starving to death and stinking up the apartment buildings, it's right for government to enforce saving while people are earning, if it gets paid back when they're old.
You argue two concepts that are in conflict with each other.
One is that for protecting the individual freedom of all, for the protection of all to make their own choices and the responsibility there in.
Then you argue the position of subjectively determining the extent of those freedoms based on your perception of what is the limit of them.
Because your perception of such operates on the principal of its own self interested opinoin, it limits such individual liberty to serve its own idealistic means.
Either you support individual liberty, or you do not. You can not claim to support freedom and then restrict it to serve your purpose.
To protect individual liberty and freedom is to protect all from the infringement of another, not by the perception of injustice through inconvenience or that of conceived ideals to serve some idealistic merit, but that by respect not only the ability for one to choose, but the consequence of ones choice itself.
That is the true establishment of freedom. That we are free to decide for better or for worse on or own without infringement from another to the result of that outcome whatever it may be. That we take into account our own responsibility to each issue we may interact with and accept that what is our doing and our responsibility is ours alone, not that of a causation of another, but that of the choices we make.
You do not argue for freedom, you argue for restriction, and oppression of your opinion under the falsehood of freedom. People are only free under your rule as you decide they are.
This makes you a tyrant and oppressor no different than the many throughout history who have raped, pillaged and slaughtered in the pursuit of their ideal of a better society.
And that is precisely why it is so useless. These boundaries are fine to giggle about on internet forums, but in real life need to be defined, and precisely, by laws. And enforcement of laws is the province of government.
Laws only exist in a free society to protect the individual from infringing on another. When a law preemptively concludes the position of another without evidence to such a case and then restricts them based on that assumption, it is oppression and there is no logical argument to claim otherwise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
