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.
Also please note that Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Paine all expressed that slavery was "wrong" on some level or was an evil. Both Jefferson and Madison actually owned slaves and felt this way so the sense of its wrong crossed the political aisle.
Jefferson believed blacks were racial inferior "incapable as children."
I believe you are too wrapped up into the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is a "statist" and just are not willing to actually contemplate what I am stating.
Did all the laws and regulations prevent Flint from being polluted?
Lots of misunderstanding represented in these comments, many too long and involved to easily understand, and here too, you seem to be making my point, agreeing with me, even though you don't realize you are doing so...
My point exactly. Even with all laws and fines that are intended to prevent these sorts of wrong-doings from happening, punishments are only PART of all necessary to prevent these wrongs or lessen their frequency of happening.
You also need education, testing, quality control, preventive measures, incentives to do right rather than wrong..., just for starters! All of which tends to be most likely if government leads the way and/or imposes whatever it takes to make those sorts of strategies successful, efficient and effective.
That's what I'm talking about...
PS: Don't emoji bang you head too much when you don't understand what you read or you might do emoji brain damage!
I think we are exchanging ideas in hope some may convert to libertarianism. :-)
I think both (if not more), and the more I read the pro-Libertarian arguments (such as they are) the more your hope and/or that conversion seems less and less likely...
No, I recognize that duality is a fact in life. People will have hurt and unhurt feelings based on a variety of things.
True, but you don't punish people with force for hurting the subjective feelings of others.
Quote:
IMO people will always have cycles of good/bad as well and that is a part of the human experience.
Will sum up the fact that I am not against Libertarianism because I hate it, just that it is in opposition to real people and how we live our lives and is in contradiction to the history of humanity for over 10,000 years.
A Libertarian society can never last because people will turn away from it based on our thoughts, emotions and feelings and experiences related to those emotions and feelings. That's why we have never had a Libertarian society - people are emotional - people base a majority of their lives on what they think and "feel."
I think if that were true, it applies to any type of society. People are irrational, but you can still have things like freedom of speech which are based in logic. It's possible that people will forget the importance of that principle at some point, but people who believe in it should work to maintain it within their society.
I think that's why there's a difference between say, western culture/values and Middle Eastern culture/valyes... The west has a history in philosophy going back to Greece, and we developed the scientific method, etc. which shaped the west. The Middle East and other places of the world did not go through that, so they have developed differently.
You can't refute logic. And that's the hallmark of a statist.
You can't refute logic?
Again I'm not sure what to make of such a statement, but I can most certainly refute it!
Definition: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Though I have often wished there was a criteria that could be commonly accepted as "valid" in order to distinguish sound reason and logic from all that is otherwise nonsense, ultimately what is deemed valid also becomes subjective, and often hotly debated -- refuted.
There are still Flat Earthers, for example, that will offer all their "logic" that the Earth is actually flat, not round. I met one not long ago and actually heard his arguments, very serious arguments that he felt were entirely logical, and no logic to the contrary seemed to change his view that the Earth was actually flat.
Immediately reminding me of threads like this one and so many others in this forum...
Practically every form of government and most philosophical views on life state the bold so Libertarianism in that respect is not different from other philosophies.
The only difference is the red word - tolerated. How would you not tolerate attacking and stealing and other wrongdoings in a Libertarian society?
You would have to create some sort of local or central governing body to oversee this. Since you support anarchy, how would you create such a body that is in line with an anarcho-libertarian philosophy.
I contend that you could not. It would be much more like our current system than you would like to admit. What would be the role of the governing body? How would those on the governing body be chosen (votes or influence...)?
This is why we have never had such a society. It cannot happen from a strictly anarchist or Libertarian sense because some other layer of organization will have to be applied once formulated in order to decide about what is and is not tolerated. And that will open the door for the negative issues that many Libertarians see today in our own society - those out to control the populace with additional layers of policy and/or people in power because of influence/power, etc.
I think one concept that would help is the idea of a bottom-up enforcement of rules rather than a top-down version. That's kind of the basis for a stateless society. I actually went back and watched a couple of those Shane Killian videos and there's one where he talks about this distinction in more detail - he uses a flock of Starlings as an analogy. It might be part 3 or 4 of that atheism and libertarianism series.
Again I'm not sure what to make of such a statement, but I can most certainly refute it!
Definition: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Though I have often wished there was a criteria that could be commonly accepted as "valid" in order to distinguish sound reason and logic from all that is otherwise nonsense, ultimately what is deemed valid also becomes subjective, and often hotly debated -- refuted.
There are still Flat Earthers, for example, that will offer all their "logic" that the Earth is actually flat, not round. I met one not long ago and actually heard his arguments, very serious arguments that he felt were entirely logical, and no logic to the contrary seemed to change his view that the Earth was actually flat.
Immediately reminding me of threads like this one and so many others in this forum...
I think he meant to say that something is either logical or it isn't. Logic is objective and there is no such thing as "my" logic or "your" logic. Just logic.
Also please note that Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Paine all expressed that slavery was "wrong" on some level or was an evil. Both Jefferson and Madison actually owned slaves and felt this way so the sense of its wrong crossed the political aisle.
Many people also think it is "wrong" to smoke, but they do anyway, which again begs the question as to whether actions speak stronger than words...
Lots of people also feel that racism is "wrong," yet so many are still inclined toward racist views and stereotypes. We feel it is "wrong" not to help people in need, but we step around the bum sleeping on the sidewalk anyway...
Ultimately, also going back to the debate among our founding fathers about this and the rest of the Constitution, of course there was debate! Much good logic and reason, agreed upon and/or refuted!
All again pointing at the inevitability of differing views, logic and opinion based on our personal bias in these regards, toward one direction or another, for whatever our reasons largely subjective. Also, however, there are those with better critical thinking skills, perhaps less self-centered, obviously we are all different in these respects...
So..., we are prejudiced toward selecting people who seem to best represent our wants and needs, our logic and reason, and these people (like our founding fathers) engage in a forum where ultimately we have little choice but to accept the outcome of them "brokering" our interests. Or someone explain to me the better way to form and/or manage a political process, a government.
IOWs, we all know what Churchill said about Democracy, and so far it seems he was right...
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.
