Libertarians and Communists share the same fatal flaw

[tremendoustie]

Moral principles aren’t relevant when discussing “workable solutions”, because mankind can’t agree with a single set of such principles. If they did, Karl Marx’s view of a non state might just be what we see come to pass as anarchy. It’s all utopian fantasy though.

Moral principles are always relevant when determining what to believe and support. Popular opinion has nothing to do with it. A good man stands against slavery, for example, even if the majority supports it.

I gave you an example – putting my kid in the corner for timeout. Maybe all he did was flip me the bird – hey that is totally in his right, but I’m not going to allow it to happen without recourse. I initiated force against him. The majority of mankind has no problems with me doing so. Maybe the majority of us are simply barbarians, but if that is the case, you better come up with a political solution to deal with us barbarians who form the vast majority of mankind.

You own your house, and if your kid wants to live there, he has to obey your rules. He could walk out the front door any time he wants. You have not violated his rights in this case.

 

[tremendoustie]

When the people of a territory vote themselves statehood, they're volunteering for more government.

What about the minority, which never consented? What about those not yet born, who also never consented? What about those not permitted to vote?

The majority has no more right to control the lives and finances of the minority than two thugs have the right to mug one victim in an ally.

 

[acptulsa]

What about the minority, which never consented? What about those not yet born, who also never consented? What about those not permitted to vote?

The majority has no more right to control the lives and finances of the minority than two thugs have the right to mug one victim in an ally.

Well, my point was that people have been known to volunteer for more government. Not that I understand the impulse, because I don't.

Not to belittle your tricky questions or anything. I think there are times when a majority must be allowed to get their way, but I am disgusted at how many liberties the majority will take with this. 'Tis a pity we don't all have enough respect for each other to say, no, I won't support this legislation because whether or not you choose to do that is none of the government's business, and none of my business. This garbage of using government benefits as an excuse to regulate personal behavior because someone might hurt themselves and so cost the taxpayers money seems to me like a recipe for escalation into tyranny.

But those psychos are nothing if not good salesmen. And, of course, there are elements in society who will do what they can get away with. I saw a black kid get hit by a car (well, not that young, and no he wasn't seriously hurt--not so bright maybe but good, quick reflexes and minimized damage). It was his fault and he knew it. He darted out from in front of a bus without pausing to look. At first, he was waving the driver away, but the driver knew better in this day and age--she stayed until the police came. He did send away the ambulance. But the whole time he was taking responsibility for his actions and refusing to pretend he was hurt worse than he was, there were people in the crowd carrying on about how they'd be playing hurt and going for the hospital stay, the drugs, and the payoff check. They didn't seem to care whose fault it was--responsibility was irrelevant.

Don't mean to be a downer. Humanity has made great strides. Gets better all the time. But I still have some trouble having an abiding faith in humanity. There may yet be too many 'bad guys' out there to leave everything to posses of volunteers. Though I'd probably take my chances in a voluntaryist community anyway, given the chance.

It would work on John Galt's island. Wish I could land a job there. I'd like to work on John Galt's island.

 

[ARealConservative]

You own your house, and if your kid wants to live there, he has to obey your rules. He could walk out the front door any time he wants. You have not violated his rights in this case.

No, a 5 year old kid can’t walk out anytime he wants to.

I’ll initiate force to stop him, and the world will side with me while an caps and their universal morality sits on the sideline irrelevant

 

[tremendoustie]

No, a 5 year old kid can’t walk out anytime he wants to.

I’ll initiate force to stop him, and the world will side with me while an caps and their universal morality sits on the sideline irrelevant

He could walk out, but he doesn't because he loves you, and because he knows he can't provide for himself, and would be far worse off without you.

I also think that children do not have the full rights of adults -- to an extent, he is your responsibility -- property if you like, although he still maintains certain rights -- for example, you cannot abuse him.

There is a big difference between telling your own five year old to sit in the corner, and throwing a full adult in a cage because he does not do what you say, or threatening to do so in order to extract money from him. The government is not mommy, and we are not its children, nor does it own the country, as you own your house.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

But I still have some trouble having an abiding faith in humanity.

The leading cause of accidental death in the U.S. is automobile accidents.

Do you drive?

 

[Thesemindz]

I gave you an example – putting my kid in the corner for timeout. Maybe all he did was flip me the bird – hey that is totally in his right, but I’m not going to allow it to happen without recourse. I initiated force against him. The majority of mankind has no problems with me doing so. Maybe the majority of us are simply barbarians, but if that is the case, you better come up with a political solution to deal with us barbarians who form the vast majority of mankind.

I'm curious ARC. What exactly is the problem with your son flipping you the bird?


-Rob

 

[NH4RonPaul]

It has only been in the past few months I have come to the realization that Libertarianism is a pipe dream, because it shares the same fatal flaw as communism.

Yeah and that is called OPEN BORDERS!

 

[Thesemindz]

Yeah and that is called OPEN BORDERS!

I'm curious NH4RP, what exactly is the problem with "open borders?"


-Rob

 

[NH4RonPaul]

I'm curious NH4RP, what exactly is the problem with "open borders?"


-Rob

OH Lord, this just proves my point about you people.

What do you think the world-government elitists want? Open borders.. because that is how the sovereignty of a country is destroyed -- letting in people who don't agree to the constitutional republic, and bringing down the system by overloading it.

Do you leave your doors unlocked so I can come in and have a beer from your fridge when I want and bring a few friends with me to party? Didn't think so.

You do understand that Ron Paul is a constitutional republican, that is, he believes in a country under the constitution, WITH BORDER CONTROL.

In other words, you're free to travel OUT, but people have to apply for citizenship, who agree to the principles of a free republic..

 

[NH4RonPaul]

I'm curious ARC. What exactly is the problem with your son flipping you the bird?


-Rob

Are you serious? You mean child should be allowed to make an obscene gesture to his dad without being called on it? What kind of parent would allow that?

 

[NH4RonPaul]

maybe if I was a 20 year old college kid...and they didn't pick such an easterly coast region.

I simply don't like the area.

Back before they picked the location, I signed up. I was a young 29 back then though. If they would of went with a west coast area, I'm pretty sure I would be a FSP'er right this second.

This area is beautiful.... NH is the #1 healthiest and safest state to live, probably because even the wimmen are packing...

 

[NH4RonPaul]

I;ll look at this other angle. The Founders promoted Christianity for the simple fact that if people believed there was something greater than themselves who would either give them rewards or punishment in the long haul...they could HAVE less government. I'm not saying they weren't true believers...because most of them were. I am saying now that Christianity has been minimized ...there is more need for government control, which is exactly what the New World Order wants....total control...for the State to be seen as God...and not God. Tones

That's a good way to think of it. The people I know who are 'religious' use it as a personal motivator... and that is private and their choice, much more preferable to the government who the one-worlders want yout to adopt as your parents and god.

 

[Thesemindz]

OH Lord, this just proves my point about you people.

You people? You people? What do you mean, you people?

What do you think the world-government elitists want? Open borders.. because that is how the sovereignty of a country is destroyed -- letting in people who don't agree to the constitutional republic, and bringing down the system by overloading it.

I support overloading and collapsing "the system." "The system" is violent and corrupt and needs to be collapsed somehow. Overloading it is possibly the quickest and least violent.

Do you leave your doors unlocked so I can come in and have a beer from your fridge when I want and bring a few friends with me to party? Didn't think so.

There is a marked difference between private and public property. I have never advocated trespassing, nor would I. Anyone who trespasses on privately held land is doing so in clear violation of the individual rights of the land owner.

You do understand that Ron Paul is a constitutional republican, that is, he believes in a country under the constitution, WITH BORDER CONTROL.

This would be one area, amongst many, where I disagree with Ron Paul. His position on this subject is completely meaningless. You and I are having a discussion, Ron Paul doesn't enter in to it.

In other words, you're free to travel OUT, but people have to apply for citizenship, who agree to the principles of a free republic..

Citizenship is enslavement. I owe no allegiance to this, or any other tyranny. My only obedience is compelled and under duress.

BTW, we are not technically free to travel out. There are many, many instances where the state proclaims a right to prevent you from leaving the country. In so doing, they proclaim an involate right to do so. 99% freedom is 100% slavery.

Now that we have all of that out of the way. I'm curious. What exactly is the problem with "open borders?"

-Rob

 

[Thesemindz]

Are you serious? You mean child should be allowed to make an obscene gesture to his dad without being called on it? What kind of parent would allow that?

I haven't stated my position on the matter. I asked ARC a question. But since you have interjected, which is fine with me, I will ask you as well.

What exactly is the problem with a son flipping off his parent?


-Rob

 

[NH4RonPaul]

I may not have the right to send my child to the corner in a time out, but that is how society is going to remain for the rest of our lives.

I am still not sure why you think you have no right to discipline your own child? Are you being cowed by the rules of the UN's rights of the child treaty?

What kind of freedom lover would succumb to that??

Unless of course you're being sarcastic... which I may have missed.

 

[Kludge]

When justifying punishment, it's best to refer to children as tenants. So sure, threaten and/or follow through with beating and otherwise punishing your tenants. If they don't like it, they can leave.

 

[NH4RonPaul]

You people? You people? What do you mean, you people?

I support overloading and collapsing "the system." "The system" is violent and corrupt and needs to be collapsed somehow. Overloading it is possibly the quickest and least violent.

Uh huh... I'm not talking about the control aspect, I'm talking about the money that is taken from us at gunpoint and then redistributed 'within and among nations' as Obama's czars want.

There is a marked difference between private and public property. I have never advocated trespassing, nor would I. Anyone who trespasses on privately held land is doing so in clear violation of the individual rights of the land owner.

Well, that's what I meant....

This would be one area, amongst many, where I disagree with Ron Paul. His position on this subject is completely meaningless. You and I are having a discussion, Ron Paul doesn't enter in to it.

But aren't you here because you are a Ron Paul supporter? If you don't agree with him on many things, why?

Citizenship is enslavement. I owe no allegiance to this, or any other tyranny. My only obedience is compelled and under duress.

OK here we go... citizenship is enslavement? Then why aren't you living in some completely ungoverned country?

BTW, we are not technically free to travel out. There are many, many instances where the state proclaims a right to prevent you from leaving the country. In so doing, they proclaim an involate right to do so. 99% freedom is 100% slavery.

Well perhaps if you are a wanted person for a crime ... you'd be wanted no matter.
I've not heard of people not being allowed out... only in communist countries like Cuba are they prevented from leaving. And I believe we're heading for that under the tin pot dictator we've elected.

Now that we have all of that out of the way. I'm curious. What exactly is the problem with "open borders?"

-Rob

It is not worth arguing this with someone who just doesn't get it.
What is wrong with my locking my doors?

Don't answer that, it's rhetorical. I am too busy a person actually working for freedom to argue about it with people with unreasonable ideas.

 

[Thesemindz]

When justifying punishment, it's best to refer to children as tenants. So sure, threaten and/or follow through with beating and otherwise punishing your tenants. If they don't like it, they can leave.

Is it appropriate to threaten, beat, or otherwise punish your tenants on the basis that they can leave if they don't agree to the violence? Is it appropriate for a government to do so to its citizens? Is this simply the "love it or leave it" argument in microcosm? Does the fact that tenants are voluntary participants whereas children are involuntary participants to the action affect the validity of this argument? After all, tenants check in, the children didn't ask to be here. Who owes a responsibility to whom? The child who is an unwilling victim of cohabitation, or the parent who brought them in to this world? Can children leave? At any age?


-Rob

 

[Thesemindz]

Uh huh... I'm not talking about the control aspect, I'm talking about the money that is taken from us at gunpoint and then redistributed 'within and among nations' as Obama's czars want.

If your problem is the theft of private assets and sale of stolen property should you be upset with the thief or the unwitting buyer?

Well, that's what I meant....

Do you believe that public property and private property are the same in principle?

But aren't you here because you are a Ron Paul supporter? If you don't agree with him on many things, why?

I am on here because I enjoy political debate. Do you agree with Ron Paul on every single issue? If so, does that invalidate your position in any way simply because it mirrors his, or his mirrors yours?

OK here we go... citizenship is enslavement? Then why aren't you living in some completely ungoverned country?

Why should my existence on one piece of dirt versus another be anyone's business except my own? Unless and until I am causing a provable, quantifiable harm to another human being, what right does anyone have to dictate where and under what conditions I can engage in non-violent voluntary exchange?

Well perhaps if you are a wanted person for a crime ... you'd be wanted no matter.
I've not heard of people not being allowed out... only in communist countries like Cuba are they prevented from leaving. And I believe we're heading for that under the tin pot dictator we've elected.

The state routinely denies citizens the right to leave the city, state, or country, while engaged in criminal investigation. They also restrict the movement of those they deem "terrorists." Are you aware that lists of these so called "terrorists" routinely contain a number of completely innocent individuals who share a common name? Are you aware that many of these "terrorists" are not guilty of anything other than harboring thoughts and ideas antithetical to the state?

It is not worth arguing this with someone who just doesn't get it.

That much is apparent from your posts so far. I have asked you a simple question, twice now, which you have failed to answer. Clearly you view this discussion as not worth your precious time. Which is of course, your prerogative.

However, if you were to choose to discuss this issue, in any depth, I would simply ask you again. What exactly is the problem with "open borders?"

What is wrong with my locking my doors?

Nothing at all. In fact, I recommend it as a general rule. I am a compulsive door locker myself.

Don't answer that, it's rhetorical. I am too busy a person actually working for freedom to argue about it with people with unreasonable ideas.

I am glad you are so important. Your mother must be proud.

Sorry I answered your rhetorical question, by the time I saw your admonition not to, it was too late to go back. After all, I am a very busy and important person.

I would love to have a meaningful discussion with you. Perhaps you can help me "get it."


-Rob