Libertarianism
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74223
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Libertarianism
Yep, I'm certainly not calling for a revolutionary change (sorry, sandinista), but we certainly need significant reforms to avoid the distortion caused by the power of extreme wealth. Whether it's the measures you suggest, and/or other steps, I'm not sure, but it is a real issue...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: Libertarianism
Hey, wouldn't expect you to. Revolutionary change will happen regardless of who "calls" for it. To think that capitalism is the end of history is ridiculous. A system based on infinite growth is doomed to failure. It was a necessary step, but it will come to an end...today's empires, tomorrows ashes. Reforms are only bandages strategically placed on a cut artery. Only postpones the inevitable and keeps those in power clinging on.JimC wrote:Yep, I'm certainly not calling for a revolutionary change (sorry, sandinista), but we certainly need significant reforms to avoid the distortion caused by the power of extreme wealth. Whether it's the measures you suggest, and/or other steps, I'm not sure, but it is a real issue...
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74223
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Libertarianism
I'm not supposing it will survive in its current form indefinitely, with resource levels being a major factor in forcing change (one that Marx never considered, BTW...)sandinista wrote:
To think that capitalism is the end of history is ridiculous.
But I am not silly enough to be certain that it will be replaced by anything resembling the communism of Marx and Lenin...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: Libertarianism
I'm not silly enough to believe that capitalism will survive full stop.JimC wrote:I'm not supposing it will survive in its current form indefinitely, with resource levels being a major factor in forcing change (one that Marx never considered, BTW...)sandinista wrote:
To think that capitalism is the end of history is ridiculous.
But I am not silly enough to be certain that it will be replaced by anything resembling the communism of Marx and Lenin...
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
Re: Libertarianism
Marx's Capitalism did end around the beginning of the 20th century where it became a regulated mixed economy with nice things like unions and worker protection. He completely missed the concept that the system would reform itself to avoid revolution (sensible countries tend to avoid revolutions at all cost and have nice slow evolving change).JimC wrote:I'm not supposing it will survive in its current form indefinitely, with resource levels being a major factor in forcing change (one that Marx never considered, BTW...)sandinista wrote:
To think that capitalism is the end of history is ridiculous.
But I am not silly enough to be certain that it will be replaced by anything resembling the communism of Marx and Lenin...
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
Re: Libertarianism
Thank you for admitting the fact that there is no moral argument to be made for such actions, there is merely the ability to do so on the part of the collective. This is a very concise description of Marxist philosophy.Beatsong wrote:Person B IS responsible for his own well being - and by teaming up with a bunch of other Person Bs (aka "The Collective") he can achieve that well being by forcing Person A to labour for him. So there's your answer.Seth wrote:MrJonno wrote:To stop person B starving,Cogently put, but you still evade the central question: What is your moral argument for forcing Person A to labor on behalf of Person B against his will?
Why is Person A responsible for the well-being of Person B? Why is Person B not responsible for his own well-being?
No, the Organic Rights state that the right is BASED in natural behavior, as opposed to divine gift. The Organic Rights are DERIVED FROM this natural behavior. This does not mean that in every instance the right way to resolve conflicts over resources is naked force. Rights accrue to the individual, not to the collective. The ability of two people to physically overcome one person does not mean that two people have twice the rights that one person does. Each person has a right to life, liberty and property that derives from the Organic Laws of nature. Those freedoms of action are defensible against intrusion by another, or many others, and the moral case for the existence of the right accrues to the individual as against those who would intrude on those rights.The problem with your disingenuous excuse for a philosophy is that it doesn't even begin to address any question of consistency. All Person A needs as justification for his unilateral declaration of property and his enforcement of that declaration upon others, is the sheer physical power to do so. That power IS the morality (according to you, apparently).
Clearly the concept of rights is intertwined with morality and ethics when it comes to civilized behavior by human beings.
As I said, civilization is the process of finding ways to substitute peaceable means of resolution of conflicts in the expression of rights for Law of the Jungle naked force. The point of stating the Organic Rights and deriving other rights from them is to rebut the socialist/collectivist notion that no right exists that is not granted to the individual by the collective. The problem with this reasoning is that from the logical perspective, the collective cannot have that which every individual of the collective does not have prior to the formation of the collective. In other words, "rights" are an expression of the idea that the individual is paramount and the collective can never be more than the sum of the individuals that comprise it or gain more moral suasion merely through numbers. Two people together do not have greater rights than one individual. A million people together do not have greater moral suasion as regards the Organic Rights than the individual does. This is illustrated by the Nazi regime of Adolph Hitler which claimed a collective right to determine which ethnic/religious groups were to enjoy fundamental rights and which were to be exterminated as sub-humans with no rights.
No person who went to the ovens of Dachau did so saying "Well, I guess the will of the collective has greater moral suasion than I the individual does, and therefore I go willingly to my death because the collective has deemed me to be less than human."
That's not a feature of human nature. All human beings will first act to preserve their own lives, and that is the basis of the First Organic Right: the Right to Life. No other human being has the right, or moral argument, absent some behavior on the part of the individual justifying it, to take the life of another human being. This is one of the most fundamental moral laws of humanity and it exists in every culture that has ever existed to one degree or another.
This right not to be killed by another without just cause is claimed by every human being on earth, and all humans will use force to defend that right against intrusion by others as a part of natural behavior. Not only that, but one person will defend another person against being killed, such as a father defending a daughter and will claim that the action to kill his daughter is objectively wrong.
Civilization is the process of making moral decisions about the behavior of individuals and determining which are acceptable and which are not acceptable. But the notion of "rights", and some few of those rights that are fundamental aspects of our existence, as opposed to social convention specific to a culture, demand some origin and basis for the claim made by one person against the actions of another better than an assumption that a collective can grant something that the collective itself does not possess.
It is my claim that "the collective" does not have some magical power that imbues "it" with something that each individual in the collective does not already have. In this case, "rights." Each individual of the collective has fundamental rights such as the right to life, liberty and property that is valid against attempted intrusions by others, regardless of the number of others who might act against those rights.
But the collective as a collective has no rights whatsoever, only powers and authorities. Only individuals have rights.
The question is not whether two people can use force to overcome the rights of one person, that's a "might makes right" argument that I'm not making. That's simply a matter of strength. My argument is that it is the individual's claim of a freedom of action and his ability to defend it that makes it a "right." It matters not at all that his ability to defend his right may be overwhelmed by the collective efforts of others. All that matters is that the individual freedom of action has a basis in natural behavior and that it can be defended against intrusion by others, not that to be a right it must always be successfully defended.
The very concept of "rights" naturally infers a moral structure and hierarchal structure within a civilized society for adjudicating conflicts among members of the collective. This ordered structure of rights and which prevail over another is quite complex, but there are some rights which can be deemed to be "fundamental" in nature because each and every member of the collective must have these rights respected by other in order to survive at all.
No collectivist has ever been able to produce a compelling and well-reasoned argument as to why and how the collective gains, much less parcels out, that which it does not have to begin with. If the collectivist argument is true, no individual in the collective has any rights unless and until the collective somehow magically imbues particular individuals with particular freedoms of action. But if no individual has any rights outside of the collective, how can a group of individuals, each of whom have no rights, suddenly be imbued with the right (or power) to imbue OTHERS with rights? What is it about the nature of the collective that gives it more "rights" than the individual members of the collective have?
It's a chicken and egg question. Which comes first, the individual's rights or the collective's rights? In my view the answer is obvious, it's the individual's right that come first because without them, the collective cannot have any rights.
You misapprehend the argument about Organic Rights, as I point out above.But the moment the boot is on the other foot, you're all concerned for the sanctity of civilised morals, and every action has to prove itself according to thorough ethical examination before being acceptable. That's nothing but hypocritical bullshit. You established the parameters - of power creating morality - so you can fucking well live with them when they're applied in ways you don't like.
No, the LAW determines what others may or may not do with the property of another. The right to acquire, possess and make use of property is a fundamental Organic Right that does not depend on the actions of anyone else and which may be defended against intrusion (theft) by others. This right derives from the Second Organic Law, which is "All organisms will seek to locate and take exclusive possession of the resources necessary for life."Now I know you would counter that the right to property is difference because it doesn't impinge upon anyone else. But as I've pointed out a thousand times before, that's bullshit too. A claim to property is, automatically, a claim of what other people AREN'T allowed to do (ie, what they're not allowed to do with your property). The idea of a property claim that doesn't impact upon others' exercise of their liberty is an oxymoron. Property is by definition a restriction of liberty - the liberty of all those who don't own the property.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: Libertarianism
Just about the only social behaviour that has been proven to occur is empathy, if you see a person in pain the parts of your brain that spark into action are the same as his. (may not apply to Seth of course but its quite a common affect of child abuse)
Thats about the only proven biological input into our morality everything else is basically having a big brain that does not having to worry about mammoths trying to eat you using its spare capacity to try out new things via trial and error
Thats about the only proven biological input into our morality everything else is basically having a big brain that does not having to worry about mammoths trying to eat you using its spare capacity to try out new things via trial and error
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
Re: Libertarianism
Fuck you.MrJonno wrote:Just about the only social behaviour that has been proven to occur is empathy, if you see a person in pain the parts of your brain that spark into action are the same as his. (may not apply to Seth of course but its quite a common affect of child abuse)
Thats about the only proven biological input into our morality everything else is basically having a big brain that does not having to worry about mammoths trying to eat you using its spare capacity to try out new things via trial and error





Mammoths were herbivores you nitwit.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: Libertarianism
The type of predator isnt really so important, human beings don't have any predators anymore (bar ourselves) so we go to the theatre, create art and music and build particle accelerators.
Basically lots of spare capacity in our brains these days now little effort is required to survive
Basically lots of spare capacity in our brains these days now little effort is required to survive
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
Re: Libertarianism
Dude. Lighthearted comedy. I think libertarians and socialists could totally work things out if we just got high before making decisions. Fine fine, we'll provide some basic healthcare, but I get to keep my guns. And what about hookers? Everyone's okay with hookers, right? Awesome.Coito ergo sum wrote:Where does this idea come from that libertarians are more selfish than socialists? Never ceases to amaze me -- the most selfish people I encounter are socialists. They think they're generous, but they are only generous with other people's money. As soon as it comes to their own money, then there's a problem.Spanish Inquisition wrote:If we program sentient robots, would it be better for them to be libertarians or socialists? I mean if they're libertarians they'll be selfish and may not value human life, but if they're socialists, that increases their likelyhood to unite with their fellow robots to overthrow humanity...
Nobody expects me...
-
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:37 pm
Re: Libertarianism
Seth wrote:Fuck you.MrJonno wrote:Just about the only social behaviour that has been proven to occur is empathy, if you see a person in pain the parts of your brain that spark into action are the same as his. (may not apply to Seth of course but its quite a common affect of child abuse)
Thats about the only proven biological input into our morality everything else is basically having a big brain that does not having to worry about mammoths trying to eat you using its spare capacity to try out new things via trial and error![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Mammoths were herbivores you nitwit.
True dat. That's why acting like a turnip puts young Seth in danger.
All rights have to be voted on. That's how they become rights.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60849
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Libertarianism
I imagine Seth must be giving the Abrams a service in readying for the coming overthrow of the gun-banning marxist tyrant Obama. 

Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Re: Libertarianism
No need, I have a scheduled maintenance program for all my weapons so they are always ready. None of it's any good if it don't work right first time, every time.rEvolutionist wrote:I imagine Seth must be giving the Abrams a service in readying for the coming overthrow of the gun-banning marxist tyrant Obama.
BTW I'm at the SHOT show in Vegas this week. Thousands of guns in the same place and nobody's gotten shot yet...
Lots of way cool stuff too.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60849
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Libertarianism
Will Obama be addressing the crowd at the SHOT show? 

Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Re: Libertarianism
I'm sure there are a WHOLE bunch of people at SHOT who would like that a lot...which is probably why they ban concealed carry and all weapons displayed at the show have to have their firing pins removed...rEvolutionist wrote:Will Obama be addressing the crowd at the SHOT show?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests