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.
These days I think we could update it to include females too. John Locke was the original liberal. Liberals (so-called) today would disagree vehemently, of course. They believe that you belong to them. They would and do love to reach into your pocket and 'spread the wealth around.'
I thought it would be interesting to see what principles people base their views on. I think it's extremely important to have foundational principles that guide your views...otherwise you'll never stay consistent. What are the things you absolutely will not compromise on?
I have views that most won't agree with (not looking for a debate), but I'll list my principles just to get it going...
1. Non-aggression principle: the initiation of force against another person is immoral
2. Respect for property rights: if someone solely owns something, nobody else has a right to it
Whatever yours are, I'd like to hear them.
The purpose of government is to defend the individual rights and liberties of the citizen, and nothing else.
Affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Affirm and promote compassion in human relations;
Affirm and promote acceptance of one another;
Affirm and promote each person's own unfettered and responsible search for truth and meaning;
Affirm and promote the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process in society at large;
Affirm and promote justice for all;
Affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
In other words: Morality over more petty concerns.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.â€
― C.S. Lewis
You have a vision of the most heinous hell on earth.
-respect to all people, regardless of religion, sex, race, sexual orientation, gender, or class
-understanding the principles of liberty
-non-aggresssion accept when aggression is necessary or moral
-promotes betterment of society and a search for knowledge
-honesty
-openness to new ideas and facts
Basically, both Republicans and Democrats regularly violate at least one of these guidelines at some point, especially the honesty one.
Are you more minarchist or anarchist? It sounds like we agree on everything except maybe this section. I don't think government has any legitimate function at all.
The play nice rules of contracts and property are a legit government function. As in being referee, not participant. Securing, defending and protecting the natural individual rights of the citizens means establishing the framework of justice such that those who willfully initiate force against others are punished for doing so, and their victims are made as whole as possible. But this would require a much, much smaller government than the one we have now, and would resemble the confederation of states between 1779 and 1787.
Read Rothbard's "Libertarian Manifesto" and most of his idea for the minimum government are how I see it.
Most of them already do 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
No, they don't, but I understand that you must consistently refuse to acknowledge the reality given that it would condemn your personal preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
You have a vision of the most heinous hell on earth.
Not at all, but I understand that you too must consistently dupe yourself into thinking good is evil and evil is good to rationalize the patently self-serving avarice that you consider an ethic.
I'd say more anarcho-capitalist actually. I think I misunderstood the second part of your post at first...but I do completely agree on coercion, and with your last example. I was thinking of copyright laws when I was reading it and think we shouldn't have them.
-respect to all people, regardless of religion, sex, race, sexual orientation, gender, or class
-understanding the principles of liberty -non-aggresssion accept when aggression is necessary or moral
-promotes betterment of society and a search for knowledge
-honesty
-openness to new ideas and facts
Basically, both Republicans and Democrats regularly violate at least one of these guidelines at some point, especially the honesty one.
Just wanted to point out that it's only a principle if there are no exceptions. Normally I would have let it go but it's a key thing in my mind. Once you make an exception to the rule, it's no longer a principle. I think everything you listed is important though...and agreed on the last point.
The play nice rules of contracts and property are a legit government function. As in being referee, not participant. Securing, defending and protecting the natural individual rights of the citizens means establishing the framework of justice such that those who willfully initiate force against others are punished for doing so, and their victims are made as whole as possible. But this would require a much, much smaller government than the one we have now, and would resemble the confederation of states between 1779 and 1787.
Read Rothbard's "Libertarian Manifesto" and most of his idea for the minimum government are how I see it.
Definitely makes sense. I'd agree, but if I want to be 100% consistent with my principles, I think the existence of a government at all is immoral. There are also some ideas out there to deter the violation of rights if there were no government. One of the main ones is dispute resolution organizations (DROs) that would work much like insurance...you pay your DRO let's say monthly, and if someone breaks into your house and steals something, they reimburse you. Then they, working with other DROs, investigate the incident and track down whoever did it (possibly have a court system, maybe something else to determine if they are guilty or not...I forget the details on that). Finally, they make it known to others what this person has done and his/her accounts can be locked by other companies, making it almost impossible for them to buy gas, food, or generally participate in that society at all. Social ostracism also comes into play.
That's one possibility of many. I'm not sure how exactly it will work with no government, but people are very innovative when they need to solve a problem that directly affects them. The more people involved, the more ideas. The big picture is that it's like slavery in the past. It doesn't matter how the cotton will be picked when slavery is abolished, doesn't matter what the slaves will do for a living once they're freed, doesn't matter how plantations will continue production at the same rate (farm machinery was invented which skyrocketed production and efficiency)...all that matters is that it's wrong.
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.
