Libertarianism in One Sentence [Archive] - House of Politics

Truth-Bringer

04-07-2007, 10:08 AM

Libertarianism in One Sentence

by Roderick Long

David Bergland once offered "Libertarianism in One Lesson." I would like to offer libertarianism in one sentence.

The most succinct formulation of libertarianism I can think of is this:

Other people are not your property.

In other words: They are not yours to boss around. Their lives are not yours to micromanage. The fruits of their labour are not yours to dispose of.

It doesn’t matter how wise or marvelous or useful it would be for other people to do whatever it is you’d like them to do. It is none of your business whether they wear their seatbelts, worship the right god, have sex with the wrong people, or engage in market transactions that irritate you. Their choices are not yours to direct. They are human beings like yourself, your equals under Natural Law. You possess no legitimate authority over them. As long as they do not themselves step over the line and start treating other people as their property, you have no moral basis for initiating violence against them – nor for authorising anyone else to do so on your behalf.

The basic principle of civilised social intercourse was stated in 1646 by Richard Overton:

"To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature not to be invaded or usurped by any. For every one, as he is himself, so he has a self-propriety, else could he not be himself; and of this no second may presume to deprive any of without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature and of the rules of equity and justice between man and man. .... No man has power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man’s. I may be but an individual, enjoy my self and my self-propriety and may write myself no more than my self, or presume any further; if I do, I am an encroacher and an invader upon another man’s right .... every man by nature being a king, priest and prophet in his own natural circuit and compass, whereof no second may partake but by deputation, commission, and free consent from him whose natural right and freedom it is."

Nor is this requirement lifted merely because you happen to be a police officer, or an elected legislator, or a member of a majority of citizens casting their votes. As Voltairine de Cleyre pointed out in 1890:

"[A] body of voters can not give into your charge any rights but their own; by no possible jugglery of logic can they delegate the exercise of any function which they themselves do not control. If any individual on earth has a right to delegate his powers to whomsoever he chooses, then every other individual has an equal right; and if each has an equal right, then none can choose an agent for another, without that other’s consent. Therefore, if the power of government resides in the whole people, and out of that whole all but one elected you as their agent, you would still have no authority whatever to act for the one. The individuals composing the minority who did not appoint you have just the same rights and powers as those composing the majority who did; and if they prefer not to delegate them at all, then neither you, nor any one, has any authority whatever to coerce them into accepting you, or any one, as their agent ...."

I suggest that the phrase “Other people are not your property,” and variations thereon, might be a more useful tool of intellectual debate than some of the other slogans we more commonly use. Why not meet every new proposal to force people to do this or that with the protest “But you don’t own them,” “But they’re not your property”? At least this would reduce the issue to its essence.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/long/long9.html

USMC the Almighty

04-07-2007, 12:40 PM

"Other people are not your property" is also an old conservative principle.

Truth-Bringer

04-07-2007, 07:42 PM

"Other people are not your property" is also an old conservative principle.

Unfortunately that knowledge was lost long ago by the Republican Party.

Everylyric

04-07-2007, 11:05 PM

Unfortunately that knowledge was lost long ago by the Republican Party.

Why do you say that?

Truth-Bringer

04-08-2007, 05:22 AM

Why do you say that?

I can't believe you're asking that question. Please take the time to read the following and you will fully understand why I say that:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rapecon.shtml

USMC the Almighty

04-08-2007, 06:57 AM

Why do you say that?

Truth's right. Just look at their spending.

n0spam4me

04-08-2007, 11:06 AM

I may be a bit lacking in the history dept.
However I recall a quote that is something like
THE GOVERNMENT GOVERNS BEST WHEN IT GOVERNS LEAST.

And I agree, however there is also the function of general consent, for things like laws governing trade & commerce and the misc. traffic regulations that at least try to keep our roads orderly and safe.

Something that I object to about AMERICA today is that people are giving consent by their silence. I have had a chance to speak to a lot of people on BART and in the market and people in general are resistant to speaking up to their Senators and Congresspeople. OOPS!

Any suggestions as to how to motovate more involvement?

just call me 1 very frustrated Patriot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

Truth-Bringer

04-08-2007, 12:00 PM

I may be a bit lacking in the history dept.
However I recall a quote that is something like
THE GOVERNMENT GOVERNS BEST WHEN IT GOVERNS LEAST.

Yes, you are correct. That would be a quote from Mr. Thomas Paine, one of our founding Libertarians. Here are a few more of his quotes that were never mentioned in the public fool system:

"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." - Thomas Paine

"What at first was called plunder assumed the softer name of tax revenue." - Thomas Paine

"To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not." - Thomas Paine

"War involves in its progress such a train of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances that no human wisdom can calculate the end. It has but one thing certain, and that is to increase taxes." - Thomas Paine

"Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at its worst, an intolerant one." – Thomas Paine

"There are two distinct classes of men... those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes." - Thomas Paine

"An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he a establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." – Thomas Paine

"When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny." – Thomas Paine

And I agree, however there is also the function of general consent, for things like laws governing trade & commerce and the misc. traffic regulations that at least try to keep our roads orderly and safe.

A lot of people have misconceptions about such things, such as police protection, for example. Most people are unaware that the police are under no legal obligation whatsoever to protect the public.

The police are used to enforce the laws and punish criminals after the fact, they do not exist to protect citizens as the Supreme Court once affirmed:

'Castle Rock v. Gonzales - the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband."

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm

South v. Maryland - found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide protection to private individuals (1856)

Bowers v. DeVito - the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." (1982)

Who will protect the poor? Ultimately the poor are responsible for protecting the poor. As we are all ultimately responsible for our own self-defense.

Something that I object to about AMERICA today is that people are giving consent by their silence. I have had a chance to speak to a lot of people on BART and in the market and people in general are resistant to speaking up to their Senators and Congresspeople. OOPS!

Yes, it's pretty pathetic. That reminds me of another quote:

"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams

Which reminded me of another:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

Any suggestions as to how to motovate more involvement?
.

For starters you have to stop wasting your vote, your time and your money on Democrats and Republicans. We clearly know now where that will lead us...to ruin. There is no quick fix, but if everyone who was as genuinely frustrated as you are, started donating money, volunteering time, and giving their vote to the Libertarian Party, you would see change in short order. There are groups of Libertarians right now moving into New Hampshire and Wyoming to specifically try and build a voting block there. You can read more here:
http://www.freestateproject.org
http://www.freestatewyoming.org

Get involved with those projects - join the Libertarian Party - join other freedom oriented groups with an annual membership fee. These groups need money to grow and the more people that pay a simple $25 a year membership fee, the sooner we will build into a real force. 10 million people = $250 million dollars. That will turn some heads in Washington. We don't need a majority to really win this. Remember, the American revolution was only supported by about one third of Americans. All we have to do is show the "undecideds" that we're a real force in this game.

palerider

04-10-2007, 08:21 AM

The most succinct formulation of libertarianism I can think of is this:

Other people are not your property.

One of the fundamental flaws within libertarian philosophy is the very real possibility for both voluntary and involuntary slavery to become common practice.

vyo476

04-10-2007, 12:30 PM

One of the fundamental flaws within libertarian philosophy is the very real possibility for both voluntary and involuntary slavery to become common practice.

I agree with palerider...unless Truth can convince me that there is a plausible and feasible way for Libertarians to hold accountable those who violate their principle tenet, "Other people are not your property."

And to what level does this extend? The employer/employee relationship can be expressed as a form of ownership (as an employee, a person's time is owned by the employer, who then compensates his employee for services rendered. The business transaction can be seen as time for money). Without any legal possibility of employment, how does capitalism work?

Truth-Bringer

04-10-2007, 07:55 PM

One of the fundamental flaws within libertarian philosophy is the very real possibility for both voluntary and involuntary slavery to become common practice.

We've got partial slavery under you conservatives and liberals right now. The percentage of money or property taken from us by threat of force or force is over 50% a year if you include all taxes, money lost to the inflation of fiat currency/central banking and the cost of regulations. And let's not forget plain ole government ineptitude, waste and fraud:

"According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." - Donald Rumsfeld, 2002

Trillions of dollars are missing from the US government. What's going on? Where is the money? How could this happen? Where are the checks and balances? How much more has gone missing? What would happen if a corporation failed to pass an audit like this? Or a taxpayer? Who is responsible for this? Would your banks continue to handle your bank account if you behaved like this? Would your investors continue to buy your securities if you behaved like this? Learn more in the articles below.

http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm

http://www.wanttoknow.info/corruptiongovernmentmilitary

For numerous listings of government waste on a state by state basis, check out:

http://www.apatheticvoter.com/FederalStateWaste.htm

And let's not forget fraud - in which the people we pay to enforce the law are either too lazy or too corrupt to enforce it, costing us billions in losses. This is from just one county:

County fraud explodes

$2 billion annual tab for worker, public abuse

BY TROY ANDERSON, Staff Writer
01/06/2007

After downplaying the scope for years, Los Angeles County officials have started to quietly acknowledge that scams by county employees and recipients of county services may be costing taxpayers nearly $2billion a year.

While there are no exact figures, the county Grand Jury last summer estimated welfare recipients are defrauding taxpayers of $500million a year. Prosecutors have estimated fraud in the food stamp, in-home care and health care programs costs more than $200million.

"It's as though in all the public assistance programs - be it welfare, food stamps, child care or Section8 housing - someone put a pot of gold in the middle of the street and walked away from it with very little integrity controls," said James Cosper, head deputy in the District Attorney's Office Welfare Fraud Division.

"It's bad throughout the entire county. ... We do two or three major sweeps a year where we go out and arrest people. In case after case, they are driving Beemers, Lexus and Mercedes automobiles, or we have evidence they are taking expensive vacations, going on very nice cruises or living in expensive homes."

And it's not just service recipients who are defrauding the county.

Rest of article at:

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_4965025

And of course we have the wonderful national debt of over $8.5 trillion (and growing) that you wonderful Democrats and Republicans have left us with. Such a blessing for future generations of Americans...

Hey, pale rider, let me give you some advice, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Truth-Bringer

04-10-2007, 07:57 PM

The employer/employee relationship can be expressed as a form of ownership (as an employee, a person's time is owned by the employer, who then compensates his employee for services rendered. The business transaction can be seen as time for money). Without any legal possibility of employment, how does capitalism work?

The employer/employee relationship is VOLUNTARY. You don't have to work for someone if you don't want to. You don't have to work for anyone. You can start your own business. We Libertarians won't tax you, so you can keep all you earn.

People usually choose employment because it's easier than hunting and gathering or starting your own farm. But a job is not an entitlement. Your only "entitlement" is liberty.

As long as your actions are peaceful, honest and voluntary, you have the freedom to live your life as you choose. Government only becomes involved if you use violence, fraud or coercion against other people to violate their rights.

palerider

04-11-2007, 02:14 AM

We've got partial slavery under you conservatives and liberals right now. The percentage of money or property taken from us by threat of force or force is over 50% a year if you include all taxes, money lost to the inflation of fiat currency/central banking and the cost of regulations. And let's not forget plain ole government ineptitude, waste and fraud:

I am talking about actual slavery, not your flawed definition of slavery.

Hey, pale rider, let me give you some advice, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I will simply skip answering the rest of that drivel because it does not have a thing to do with the fact that within the libertarian philosophy, there is the very real possibility of actual slavery thus putting the lie to your libertarianism in one sentence theory.

The fact is, that within the philosophy of libertarianism is the very real possibility of literally owning other human beings.

vyo476

04-11-2007, 05:06 AM

The employer/employee relationship is VOLUNTARY. You don't have to work for someone if you don't want to. You don't have to work for anyone. You can start your own business. We Libertarians won't tax you, so you can keep all you earn.

People usually choose employment because it's easier than hunting and gathering or starting your own farm. But a job is not an entitlement. Your only "entitlement" is liberty.

As long as your actions are peaceful, honest and voluntary, you have the freedom to live your life as you choose. Government only becomes involved if you use violence, fraud or coercion against other people to violate their rights.

But doesn't the idea of ownership of any kind of a person or a person's time fly in the face of your ideology? And by the same token, your argument just proved palerider correct: just as the employer/employee relationship can be voluntary, a slave system of one kind or another could just as easily be portrayed that way as well.

But that is an extreme point of view and aside from the issue I'd much rather hear you discuss. How would the government hold accountable those who violate its laws? Without a tax system the government would be starved for money, and unless you plan on slashing up the national defense budget along with the social programs I'm sure you detest, I'm not seeing how a tariff or duties would bring in enough money to keep the government afloat and doing its job (however you define "its job," of course).

palerider

04-11-2007, 07:55 AM

But doesn't the idea of ownership of any kind of a person or a person's time fly in the face of your ideology? And by the same token, your argument just proved palerider correct: just as the employer/employee relationship can be voluntary, a slave system of one kind or another could just as easily be portrayed that way as well.

The concept of ownership of a human body, even self ownership creates within the philosophy of libertarianism an irreconcilable paradox that leaves the entire philosophy unworthy of being taken seriously.

Libertarians want prostitution and drugs made legal, and they don't want to pay taxes. That is the depth of the political movement. Libertarianism is a young persons philosophy. The paradox of human ownership within the philosophy is such that no mature thinking person would ever take it seriously and as such, anyone beyond the age of 30 who remains a libertarian is intellectually suspect.

But that is an extreme point of view and aside from the issue I'd much rather hear you discuss. How would the government hold accountable those who violate its laws? Without a tax system the government would be starved for money, and unless you plan on slashing up the national defense budget along with the social programs I'm sure you detest, I'm not seeing how a tariff or duties would bring in enough money to keep the government afloat and doing its job (however you define "its job," of course).

Government would not hold accountable those who violate its laws. In order to be a libertarian, you have to believe in a universal spirit of good will among human beings. As such, like thinking individuals would form private syndicates to protect their rights and security against others. If a universal spirit of good will existed among human beings, this would be a fine and dandy solution to individual security. The fact is, however, that no such universal spirit of good will exists, and as a result, the private syndicates formed by like thinking libertarian groups would quickly come to resembel crime families such as the mafia and yakuza. Those with the most funding would quickly assimilate less wealthy groups and their resources with them. A further form of slavery that reinforces the paradox.

Truth-Bringer

04-11-2007, 07:05 PM

But doesn't the idea of ownership of any kind of a person or a person's time fly in the face of your ideology? And by the same token, your argument just proved palerider correct: just as the employer/employee relationship can be voluntary, a slave system of one kind or another could just as easily be portrayed that way as well.

No, it cannot - it's either VOLUNTARY or it isn't.

But that is an extreme point of view and aside from the issue I'd much rather hear you discuss. How would the government hold accountable those who violate its laws? Without a tax system the government would be starved for money, and unless you plan on slashing up the national defense budget along with the social programs I'm sure you detest, I'm not seeing how a tariff or duties would bring in enough money to keep the government afloat and doing its job (however you define "its job," of course).

I think a lot of people don't want to try libertarianism just because of fear, which is irrational. All we're calling for is experimentation, via the scientific method, to apply our principles. If it fails, we can always go back to what we have now. There's no risk if we start with a small, area, a small city or large town, then go to a state, then regional, and finally the federal level if all works as planned.

One thing is certain, refusal to experiment is irrational and unscientific. All scientific progress and verification of truth has come via the scientific method, which is based on experimentation.

Why not experiment? It's already been done on some levels, such as Thomas Jeffersons administration, with great success:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=898

Socialists and collectivists don't want to experiment with it because they want more government - plain and simple - and there are a lot of socialists in the media who don't want to do any stories on libertarianism as a result. Politicians don't want to experiment with it because THEY LOSE POWER in such an environment. They can't purport to come save everyone and save the world when the government is limited solely to protecting individual rights under natural law.

Truth-Bringer

04-11-2007, 07:23 PM

I am talking about actual slavery, not your flawed definition of slavery.

ROTFLMAO!!! If there's one thing that always holds up, it's the fact that there's always one of you arrogant, know-it-all elitists on every forum. The one thing you all have in common: you all think you're a hell of a lot smarter than you actually are.

My definition isn't flawed just "because you say so," arrogant one. You have to do something called "prove it."

So if someone takes 50% of everything you own by threat of force, you're not essentially half their slave? They take 50% of the product of your labor, or else they use force against you. That's partial slavery. If you say it ain't so, then produce a logical syllogism that disproves it.

Here are a few definitions that further support my position. Read 'em and weep, arrogant one:

SLAVE

1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another: BONDMAN

2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence.

SLAVERY

1. drudgery, toil
2. submission to a dominating influence
3. a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding.

The same dictionary then defines "servitude" as follows:

SERVITUDE

1. : a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life
2. : a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another

From the above definition, you can see that servitude, or slavery, encompasses not only surrendering control of one’s body and time to another, but it also involves the right of use and beneficial enjoyment of one’s property as well. Servitude is a condition where we have been involuntarily deprived of liberty. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 1388 defines slavery as follows:

slavery: The condition of a slave; that civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

slave: A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

The condition of slavery is referred to in the U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 77 (sections 1581 through 1588) as "peonage", which is defined as follows:

PEONAGE

1. a: the use of laborers bound in servitude because of debt b: a system of convict labor by which convicts are
2. : the condition of a peon.

PEON 3 a: a person held in compulsory servitude to a master for the working out of an indebtedness b: DRUDGE, MENIAL

I will simply skip answering the rest of that drivel because it does not have a thing to do with the fact that within the libertarian philosophy, there is the very real possibility of actual slavery thus putting the lie to your libertarianism in one sentence theory.

The only one spouting drivel here is you, arrogant one. This is not just the "pale rider says it's so, so it is" show. You are full of yourself, man, and it's running out your ears... The way you run from my questions and run from the facts I present that expose the corruption and incompetence of your beloved Republicans, it looks like you're more of a Shetland pony rider.

The fact is, that within the philosophy of libertarianism is the very real possibility of literally owning other human beings.

No, that possibility does not exist. The possibility for voluntary servitude exists, but that exists under any political system. As stupid as it may be, one could voluntarily serve another without compensation. If they knowingly and voluntarily choose to do so, they have the right to do it, although, as I said, it would be a stupid decision. But since that isn't happening on a broad scale now, it wouldn't happen on a broad scale under any political system.

So you can stop crying now. Your speculation is irrelevant. Try actually proving something for a change instead of foisting your worthless opinions on people and pretending that equates to a valid argument. You're a joke.

Truth-Bringer

04-11-2007, 07:25 PM

The concept of ownership of a human body, even self ownership creates within the philosophy of libertarianism an irreconcilable paradox that leaves the entire philosophy unworthy of being taken seriously.

ROTFL some more... :D :D :D You are a freakin' riot, man. Again, just cause you say so, right? :D That's a nice little skew there after you've refused to answer my question - so I'll ask it again: Do you own yourself? Do you control your own actions? Are you too scared to answer my questions? Or too stupid?

Libertarians want prostitution and drugs made legal, and they don't want to pay taxes. That is the depth of the political movement.

No, you lying fraud. The essense of the movement is "other people are not your property." And they're not, so you need to stop stealing from them and trying to control their peaceful and honest behavior. Get a life of your own and stop trying to control other people.

Libertarianism is a young persons philosophy. The paradox of human ownership within the philosophy is such that no mature thinking person would ever take it seriously and as such, anyone beyond the age of 30 who remains a libertarian is intellectually suspect.

LOL. Ad Hominems don't make an argument. Sorry, arrogant one, but you'll have to do better...

Government would not hold accountable those who violate its laws.

There were no taxes under Thomas Jefferson's administration, and yet law breakers were held accountable. Imagine that...YOU'RE LYING AGAIN. Laws would be upheld under a Libertarian government and crime would be punished. The only difference is that crime would be limited to violations involving force and fraud.

For example, murder, rape and assault - crimes. Collusion, theft by deception, false advertising - crimes. Smoking pot in your house - not a crime. Agreeing to exchange sex for money - not a crime.

We'll focus all law enforcement on the real criminals.

In order to be a libertarian, you have to believe in a universal spirit of good will among human beings. As such, like thinking individuals would form private syndicates to protect their rights and security against others. If a universal spirit of good will existed among human beings, this would be a fine and dandy solution to individual security. The fact is, however, that no such universal spirit of good will exists,

Actually, it's the inverse that you imply, that humankind has no spirit of good will, that defeats your own argument:

"Some people argue that because human nature is inherently evil, therefore "government" is necessary to control people to curb their evil behavior. This is a fallacious argument. It's like saying you must appoint a fox to guard the hens. If people are evil, then a "government" consisting of people will ipso facto also be evil. For more on this issue, see Human Nature, Anarchy, and Capitalism by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. It seems reasonable to me that the evil in the Mafia is greater than the evil in the general population. Why should anyone expect "government" to be any different?

"By far the most numerous and most flagrant violations of personal liberty and individual rights are performed by governments... The major crimes throughout history, the ones executed on the largest scale, have been committed not by individuals or bands of individuals but by governments, as a deliberate policy of those governments... that is, by the official representatives of governments, acting in their official capacity." -- John Hospers

See Government Death Machines..., Death by Government and American Holocaust: The Genocide of the Native American Peoples and the Theft of Their Land. Maybe the main differences are that "government" evil tends to occur on a much wider scale than Mafia evil, and that people in "government" are better at disguising their evil than the Mafiosi.

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- William O. Douglas ("Supreme Court Justice")

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07b.shtml

and as a result, the private syndicates formed by like thinking libertarian groups would quickly come to resembel crime families such as the mafia and yakuza. Those with the most funding would quickly assimilate less wealthy groups and their resources with them. A further form of slavery that reinforces the paradox.

Except for the inconvenient fact that there are actual historical examples which refute your irrational claims:

FROM MUTUAL AID TO THE WELFARE STATE
by David T. Beito
University of North Carolina Press, 2000, paperback

Private individuals did a great job helping each other before the welfare state came along

I've had it with all this talk of making government more "compassionate." Before the coming of the welfare state, there were all kinds of private arrangements to help people in need, doing a better job than bureaucrats do today.

Here is the untold story of American fraternal societies which provided millions with insurance, employment information, temporary lodging, and character references. Beito shows how "the rise of alternative forms of social welfare [i.e. the government] has dramatically reduced the demand for social welfare services among members. Mutual aid was a creature of necessity. Once this necessity ended, so, too, did the primary reason for the existence of fraternalism. Without a return to this necessity, any revival of mutual aid will remain limited. The shift from mutual aid and self-help to the welfare state has involved more than a simple bookkeeping transfer of service provision from one set of institutions to another... The old relationships of voluntary reciprocity and autonomy have slowly given way to paternalistic dependency. Instead of mutual aid, the dominant social welfare arrangements of Americans have increasingly become characterized by impersonal bureaucracies controlled by outsiders." Important book.

"David Beito's new book is an original, highly readable contribution to at least two lively scholarly debates--one on the evolution of social welfare provision and the second on the history of civic associations and social capital. His masterful and provocative account of the history of fraternalism embodies lessons of interest to anyone concerned about the vitality of community solidarity in contemporary America."
--Robert D. Putnam, Harvard University

"Mr. Beito's history is fascinating and instructive in itself, but it is also well-presented, mercifully free of jargon and trendy obsessions that make most academic social history such a chore to read. Fraternal societies are not likely, ever again, to play the role they they once did, but their noble past stands as a rebuke to anyone inclined to respond to the crisis of the moment with a call for "legislative action," as if we cannot help ourselves."
--Bruce Bartlett, in the Wall Street Journal

Book is listed at http://www.lfb.com

Rokerijdude11

04-11-2007, 07:58 PM

Great Thread!!

vyo476

04-11-2007, 08:54 PM

I think a lot of people don't want to try libertarianism just because of fear, which is irrational. All we're calling for is experimentation, via the scientific method, to apply our principles. If it fails, we can always go back to what we have now. There's no risk if we start with a small, area, a small city or large town, then go to a state, then regional, and finally the federal level if all works as planned.

One thing is certain, refusal to experiment is irrational and unscientific. All scientific progress and verification of truth has come via the scientific method, which is based on experimentation.

Why not experiment? It's already been done on some levels, such as Thomas Jeffersons administration, with great success:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=898

Socialists and collectivists don't want to experiment with it because they want more government - plain and simple - and there are a lot of socialists in the media who don't want to do any stories on libertarianism as a result. Politicians don't want to experiment with it because THEY LOSE POWER in such an environment. They can't purport to come save everyone and save the world when the government is limited solely to protecting individual rights under natural law.

You didn't answer my question. How does the government hold accountable those who violate your principles?

palerider

04-12-2007, 01:52 AM

All we're calling for is experimentation, via the scientific method, to apply our principles. If it fails, we can always go back to what we have now.

More evidence of why libertarianism is not the philosophy of mature people. Grownups know that almost all scientific experiments fail and when one is talking about an economy, and a legal system that is the size of ours, when the experiment inevetably failed, there would be no going back. The damage would take generations to repair if, in fact, it could ever be repaired.

palerider

04-12-2007, 02:15 AM

ROTFLMAO!!! If there's one thing that always holds up, it's the fact that there's always one of you arrogant, know-it-all elitists on every forum. The one thing you all have in common: you all think you're a hell of a lot smarter than you actually are.

I am not the one promoting a flawed philosophy. The fact of the matter is that libertarians consistently get 1% or less of the national vote. This doesn't happen because you are smarter than 99% of the population, it happens because most of the population see the immaturity that libertarian thinking represents.

My definition isn't flawed just "because you say so," arrogant one. You have to do something called "prove it."

Of course it is. To be a slave, one must be legally owned by another. LEGALLY OWNED. That is what slavery is. Any other definition is flawed. Prove that your definition of slavery constitutes legal ownership.

So if someone takes 50% of everything you own by threat of force, you're not essentially half their slave? They take 50% of the product of your labor, or else they use force against you. That's partial slavery. If you say it ain't so, then produce a logical syllogism that disproves it.

First off, if I am a slave, I am legally owned by someone else and since they own me, they also own everything that could be construed as mine. As a slave, I would not have anything that my master had not specifically given me and therefore would have nothing that someone else could take 50% of. Your definition is flawed and your philosophy is flawed. The nature of libertarianism is that you must unilatarally redefine words in order for your philosophy to make any sense at all.

There is no such thing as partial slavery. Another made up term. One is either a slave, or one is free. If you don't like this system, you are free to travel the world seeking another that suits you better. You are obviously never going to change this one getting 1% of the vote.

And the "threat of force" analogy is so tiresome. Get a new one, and don't come up with "men with guns" either, it has already been used ad nauseum as well.

The only one spouting drivel here is you, arrogant one. This is not just the "pale rider says it's so, so it is" show. You are full of yourself, man, and it's running out your ears... The way you run from my questions and run from the facts I present that expose the corruption and incompetence of your beloved Republicans, it looks like you're more of a Shetland pony rider.

I have shown you already. If you lack the intellectual wattage to comprehend it, that is not my responsibility. And in case you haven't noticed, it is you who is running away. Have you noticed that everyone you have talked to has pointed out that you are not answering specific questions they put to you? You regurgitate a flood of drivel in place of specific answers and then tell everyone how smart you are. Wake up and smell the pancakes.

No, that possibility does not exist. The possibility for voluntary servitude exists, but that exists under any political system. As stupid as it may be, one could voluntarily serve another without compensation. If they knowingly and voluntarily choose to do so, they have the right to do it, although, as I said, it would be a stupid decision. But since that isn't happening on a broad scale now, it wouldn't happen on a broad scale under any political system.

Ownership of one's self makes one's self property. One can sell property to another. Under the philosophy of libertarianism, one could legally sell oneself to another and fit the legal definiton of slavery. By the same token, if you owe me a debt that is larger than your monetary holdings, I am entitled to sieze your property, and if yourself is property, I woud have the legal right to sieze yourself in payment of debt. The fact that you don't see this glaring fact within your philosphy is evidence that you are not a mature, thinking person.

So you can stop crying now. Your speculation is irrelevant. Try actually proving something for a change instead of foisting your worthless opinions on people and pretending that equates to a valid argument. You're a joke.

I am not crying. A political group that can't get elected to any office higher than city council and dog catcher hardly represents a threat worthy of crying over. There is a specific reason that your philosophy which has been around for quite some time can't gain traction. When you grow up, you will come to know why.

palerider

04-12-2007, 02:28 AM

ROTFL some more... :D :D :D You are a freakin' riot, man. Again, just cause you say so, right? :D That's a nice little skew there after you've refused to answer my question - so I'll ask it again: Do you own yourself? Do you control your own actions? Are you too scared to answer my questions? Or too stupid?

Not because I say so, because your philosophy says so. I have put the question to you, now you can either address it, or continue to roll on the flooor laughing in defeat. This is the typical libertarian response. Laugher in lieu of defending your philosophy.

The answer to your question is no, I do not own myself. No one owns me. If I owned myself, I could sell my body parts for profit. I clearly can't do that, so I clearly don't own them. And I control my actions to a degree, exactly as you do. In any society, you are given a range of options that you may operate within.

No, you lying fraud. The essense of the movement is "other people are not your property." And they're not, so you need to stop stealing from them and trying to control their peaceful and honest behavior. Get a life of your own and stop trying to control other people.

No, the essence of libertarianism is legal prostitution, legal drugs, and no taxes. Not necessarily in that order. All libertarians have one of these as their holy grail. Your grail is no taxes.

LOL. Ad Hominems don't make an argument. Sorry, arrogant one, but you'll have to do better...

Are you arguing that most libertarians aren't under the age of 30?

There were no taxes under Thomas Jefferson's administration, and yet law breakers were held accountable. Imagine that...YOU'RE LYING AGAIN. Laws would be upheld under a Libertarian government and crime would be punished. The only difference is that crime would be limited to violations involving force and fraud.

Is Thomas Jefferson all you have? His idea of replacing taxes with tarrifs failed and caused a drastic contraction of the economy. He was no economic guru. And libertarian ideas of law enforcement are a joke.

As to the syndicates, you post evidence of them and then suggest that syndicates are not libertarianism's answer to law enforcement.

palerider

04-12-2007, 02:31 AM

You didn't answer my question. How does the government hold accountable those who violate your principles?

He provided an example. Libertarinans favor private law enforcement. If you can afford to join the syndicate, you and your property will be protected from all syndicates that are of equal and lesser power to yours. Those who can afford a more powerful syndicate, however, will quickly assimilate yours and you will become subjects of those who are able to afford the most power. Or you can opt out and be a free agent. To see how that works out, go and try to be a gang of one in the territory of the Bloods.

Don't expect a direct answer from "truth bringer" (what a joke) or any libertarian for that matter. And don't expect for them to engage in a philosophical discussion with their own words. They like to post long recitations from others that they believe answers the questions that are being put to them. Libertarians are almost universally young people who have not reached a level of intellectual maturity in which they can seriously examine their philosophy. Anger and frustration drive them.

When libertarians begin to grow intellectually, one of two things happens with them. Either they realize that their philosophy is terribly flawed and they leave libertarianism in favor of something that makes more sense, or they realize that they can take advantage of the anger and frustration that the young libertarians express and they use that, and them to gain some modicum of local political power. There are very specific reasons that there are very few rank and file libertarians over the age of 30. There are the very young who cut and paste the words of others in an attempt to make their arguments, and there are the few older ones who keep them agitated, also mostly with the words of others.

vyo476

04-12-2007, 07:32 AM

He provided an example. Libertarinans favor private law enforcement. If you can afford to join the syndicate, you and your property will be protected from all syndicates that are of equal and lesser power to yours. Those who can afford a more powerful syndicate, however, will quickly assimilate yours and you will become subjects of those who are able to afford the most power. Or you can opt out and be a free agent. To see how that works out, go and try to be a gang of one in the territory of the Bloods.

Don't expect a direct answer from "truth bringer" (what a joke) or any libertarian for that matter. And don't expect for them to engage in a philosophical discussion with their own words. They like to post long recitations from others that they believe answers the questions that are being put to them. Libertarians are almost universally young people who have not reached a level of intellectual maturity in which they can seriously examine their philosophy. Anger and frustration drive them.

When libertarians begin to grow intellectually, one of two things happens with them. Either they realize that their philosophy is terribly flawed and they leave libertarianism in favor of something that makes more sense, or they realize that they can take advantage of the anger and frustration that the young libertarians express and they use that, and them to gain some modicum of local political power. There are very specific reasons that there are very few rank and file libertarians over the age of 30. There are the very young who cut and paste the words of others in an attempt to make their arguments, and there are the few older ones who keep them agitated, also mostly with the words of others.

The same goes for most extremist movements in this country. I remember when I was in high school I was so far off the left end of the spectrum that Hilary Clinton had to use binoculars to find me. I'd like to think I've mellowed a bit since then.

Truth-Bringer, I have another question. If you are steadfast in your belief in the Libertarian philosophy, how do you plan to bring others into the fold? All you seem to be doing here is attempting to insult palerider over and over. That is hardly a very good strategy for convincing people of the error of their ways; you'd be more likely to be polarizing people against you. And a tip: things like "ROFLMAO" have no place in a semi-formal discussion. It makes you look juvenile.

Rokerijdude11

04-12-2007, 07:51 AM

He provided an example. Libertarinans favor private law enforcement. If you can afford to join the syndicate, you and your property will be protected from all syndicates that are of equal and lesser power to yours. Those who can afford a more powerful syndicate, however, will quickly assimilate yours and you will become subjects of those who are able to afford the most power. Or you can opt out and be a free agent. To see how that works out, go and try to be a gang of one in the territory of the Bloods.

Don't expect a direct answer from "truth bringer" (what a joke) or any libertarian for that matter. And don't expect for them to engage in a philosophical discussion with their own words. They like to post long recitations from others that they believe answers the questions that are being put to them. Libertarians are almost universally young people who have not reached a level of intellectual maturity in which they can seriously examine their philosophy. Anger and frustration drive them.

When libertarians begin to grow intellectually, one of two things happens with them. Either they realize that their philosophy is terribly flawed and they leave libertarianism in favor of something that makes more sense, or they realize that they can take advantage of the anger and frustration that the young libertarians express and they use that, and them to gain some modicum of local political power. There are very specific reasons that there are very few rank and file libertarians over the age of 30. There are the very young who cut and paste the words of others in an attempt to make their arguments, and there are the few older ones who keep them agitated, also mostly with the words of others.

the problem with all of this drivel .........is your so far from reality you need binoculars to even see it im 50 yrs old and a Libretarian there goes your childish one dimensional theory huh pale? Btw there are thousands and thousands of us way older than 30 get a clue will ya

palerider

04-12-2007, 07:58 AM

im 50 yrs old and a Libretarian there goes your childish one dimensional theory huh pale?

If you are 50 and a libertarian voter rather than a libertarian leader, then you are intellectually suspect as one your age should be able to recognize the paradox within libertarianism and thus find it unworthy of serious consideration.

I flirted with libertarianism until I was in my middle 20's and outgrew it. Philosophically, the movement is bankrupt and always has been.

vyo476

04-12-2007, 08:05 AM

the problem with all of this drivel .........is your so far from reality you need binoculars to even see it im 50 yrs old and a Libretarian there goes your childish one dimensional theory huh pale? Btw there are thousands and thousands of us way older than 30 get a clue will ya

While they say that imitation is the highest form of praise, I don't like being parroted.

Rokerijdude11

04-12-2007, 08:54 AM

While they say that imitation is the highest form of praise, I don't like being parroted.

Exactly how is it you are being "parroted" My my arent you full of yourself

vyo476

04-12-2007, 11:27 AM

I remember when I was in high school I was so far off the left end of the spectrum that Hilary Clinton had to use binoculars to find me

the problem with all of this drivel .........is your so far from reality you need binoculars to even see it

No doubt you see the similarity.

Rokerijdude11

04-12-2007, 12:14 PM

indeed i do Parroting wasnt the objective so I extend my apology to you.

vyo476

04-12-2007, 03:35 PM

indeed i do Parroting wasnt the objective so I extend my apology to you.

Thank you.

Truth-Bringer

04-12-2007, 07:44 PM

More evidence of why libertarianism is not the philosophy of mature people. Grownups know that almost all scientific experiments fail

ROTFL. Your Ad Hominem attacks are logical fallacies. Since you started it, I'm going to give as good as I get, so I will be returning the favor, but again, your "position" is completely and totally irrational and illogical. Probably a good case of Cognitive Dissonance that prevents you from seeing it. That and your over-sized ego, arrogant one.

Regardless, NO TRUTH CAN BE PROVEN OUTSIDE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. So, since you allege most experiments fail, is your position that the scientific method should be done away with??? ROTFLMAO!!!! Keep talking, Shetland pony rider. You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

and when one is talking about an economy, and a legal system that is the size of ours, when the experiment inevetably failed, there would be no going back. The damage would take generations to repair if, in fact, it could ever be repaired.

What a complete and total fraud you are. Have you no intellectual honesty whatsoever? Or do you just enjoy deceiving yourself and others? You might need to seek out a good therapist...

What did I quantify in my original statement? I stated that the experiments would start very small scale in a town or other small area.

You really need to stop lying and you also need to apologize to the people of this forum for attempting to defraud them via distortions and fallacies.

You are one pathetic little lying dweeb.

Truth-Bringer

04-12-2007, 07:46 PM

I am not the one promoting a flawed philosophy.

Yes, you are, you lying fraud. Conservatism is a completely flawed philosophy, as evidenced by your master Bush who purports to be a Conservative:

Government spending has gone up every single year under Bush.
The size of government has grown larger every single year under Bush.
The national debt has grown larger every single year under Bush.
The number of federal employees has increased under Bush.
The number of entitlement programs has increased under Bush.
The number of federal regulations has increased every year under Bush.
Government corruption has continued unabated among Republicans.
Bush has done nothing to create the smaller government he campaigned on.

He has either compromised his principles, or he lied from the beginning...which is it?

The fact of the matter is that

...You're a lying fraud. Yes, I think we're all beginning to get the picture on that...

libertarians consistently get 1% or less of the national vote. This doesn't happen because you are smarter than 99% of the population, it happens because most of the population see the immaturity that libertarian thinking represents.

So when 1% or less of the world's population believed the world was round, while the remaining 99% of the population believed it was flat - your argument is that the 1% weren't actually more knowledgeable than the 99%, but that the 99% saw the "immaturity" of the "round worlders" and therefore knew that the world was really flat? That would be an interesting concept... :rolleyes:

By the way, the "immaturity" comment was yet another Ad Hominem, in case anyone is keeping count - better keep a long scorecard if that's the case...

Of course it is. To be a slave, one must be legally owned by another. LEGALLY OWNED. That is what slavery is.

Unfortunately for you, your flawed view of things "just ain't so" - see, with many words there are multiple possible meanings. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary some time and just try to look through it. Some have pictures, so you might try those. Might be easier for you.

Any other definition is flawed. Prove that your definition of slavery constitutes legal ownership.

My definitions are from unbiased sources - dictionaries. I've presented the evidence. You're the one that has to prove that they're flawed. And you're missing the definition of something else - de facto. Maybe you missed that one when you were telling your teachers that they were "immature" so you didn't need to listen to them. De facto means: Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially established. So one can be a de facto slave, without actually being "legally owned."

When I tell you to go pick up a dictionary and read it, you abject moron, you better listen to me. See what an ignorant fool I can show you to be? And there you were thinking you were smarter than everybody else... :D :D :D

None are more hopelessly ignorant than those who falsely believe they are knowledgeable. Think about that. It applies to you perfectly.

First off, if I am a slave, I am legally owned by someone else and since they own me,

Umm...no, as I just proved.

they also own everything that could be construed as mine. As a slave, I would not have anything that my master had not specifically given me and therefore would have nothing that someone else could take 50% of. Your definition is flawed

You are one seriously stupid fool, aren't you? You're trying to concoct one possible scenario and then claim that only your opinionated version can be true. ROTFMAO!!! Are you really this delusional? Get your ego under control, Shetland pony rider. It's totally misplaced. You do not set the circumstances for everything in the world, you arrogant fool. Again, the dictionary definitions include:

SLAVERY

1. drudgery, toil
2. submission to a dominating influence
3. a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding.

SERVITUDE

1. : a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life
2. : a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another

Here are some more

Slave:

One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence

someone who works as hard as a slave

a person who works very hard for someone else

Those are from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slave

I guess they all "need to grow up" since they don't agree with your flawed version...

The nature of libertarianism is that you must unilatarally redefine words in order for your philosophy to make any sense at all.

The nature of conservatism must be that you ignore valid definitions from valid sources or fail to understand them or experience Cognitive Dissonance when they disprove that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

There is no such thing as partial slavery. Another made up term. One is either a slave, or one is free.

Partial slavery is the joining of two valid terms. If someone else controls 50% of everything I earn, I am a de facto partial slave to them for that percentage of my own labor or property that I do not control.

Now refute that with a logical syllogism or shut your pie hole. And you better consider the full definitions before you make a fool out of yourself yet again...

If you don't like this system, you are free to travel the world seeking another that suits you better.

Why don't you admit you're an immoral fraud and leave? Who gave anyone else claim over the fruits of my labor or my property? Nobody. You need to stop stealing from people and trying to control them. In regards to upholding the inalienable rights of other individuals, you're a domestic enemy to the Constitution.

You are obviously never going to change this one getting 1% of the vote.

The American revolution was not supported by the majority, and many people support libertarian principles, they've just been deceived by you frauds in the two major parties. The truth will ultimately prevail over your lies. May take another 100 years, but it is worth the sacrifice.

And the "threat of force" analogy is so tiresome. Get a new one, and don't come up with "men with guns" either, it has already been used ad nauseum as well.

Sorry, but that's an accurate characterization. With taxes, for example,

I have shown you already. If you lack the intellectual wattage to comprehend it, that is not my responsibility.

This coming from a moron who constantly uses logical fallacies... ok...

And in case you haven't noticed, it is you who is running away. Have you noticed that everyone you have talked to has pointed out that you are not answering specific questions they put to you?

Another complete and total lie - "Everyone you have talked to?" LOL. What a pathetic little liar you are. One other individual made that false claim in this thread - false because I did answer his question. I can't magically grant you people reading comprehension skills.

You regurgitate a flood of drivel in place of specific answers and then tell everyone how smart you are.

Oh, I've told no one I'm smart - nor do I claim to be. I'm simply noting - accurately - that you're a lying fraud and a moron who apparently can't see through all the logical fallacies you're making.

Ownership of one's self makes one's self property.

LOL. What is it with you? (Besides the numerous flaws I've already stated) Ownership of one's self and control of one's actions do not automatically redefine each of us as property. If we were to be defined as property - as self-owners, no one else would have legal claim to us. So, there's absolutely no point to your alleged "point"...

One can sell property to another. Under the philosophy of libertarianism, one could legally sell oneself to another and fit the legal definiton of slavery. By the same token, if you owe me a debt that is larger than your monetary holdings, I am entitled to sieze your property, and if yourself is property, I woud have the legal right to sieze yourself in payment of debt. The fact that you don't see this glaring fact within your philosphy is evidence that you are not a mature, thinking person.

ROTFL. Thanks for pwning yourself, moron. The possibility that you're fearmongering about here ALREADY EXISTS, Einstein. Slavery and involuntary servitude are illegal, but what's still legal in our system? VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. That's why the income tax system works. If you sign on the dotted line and waive your rights, you can volunteer to be a servant. No problem.

If someone wanted to voluntarily go and be a live in servant for someone else with no monetary compensation whatsoever, they are legally free to do so, right now, under our current legal system. It would be a stupid decision, but they could do it, if it was their voluntary choice. The fact that this isn't happening proves your "argument" is completely and totally invalid.

Truth-Bringer

04-12-2007, 07:47 PM

I am not crying.

Sorry - you're lying and crying. I forget to include the full description that last time.

A political group that can't get elected to any office higher than city council and dog catcher hardly represents a threat worthy of crying over.

Well, we've been elected to the state legislature before, but hey, why should you stop lying at this point? You're on a roll...;)

There is a specific reason that your philosophy which has been around for quite some time can't gain traction. When you grow up, you will come to know why.

Yes, it can't gain traction because you Republicans and Democrats have spread lies, distortions and falsehoods and used the power of government to either keep Libertarians off the ballot, or force them to spend all of their funds in an effort to gain simple access to the ballot - funds that could have otherwise been used for political advertising. As shown here:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=897

Truth-Bringer

04-12-2007, 07:53 PM

And the "threat of force" analogy is so tiresome. Get a new one, and don't come up with "men with guns" either, it has already been used ad nauseum as well.

Again, it's accurate. With taxes for example. Taxation is not a contribution.

If you refuse to pay, you will receive threatening letters demanding payment. If you ignore them, eventually a case will be filed in court. If you ignore the summons and fail to appear, a warrant will be issued for your arrest and men with guns will come to your home to take you to jail. If you tell them you're not going and to leave your property, they will forcibly try to take you in. If you physically resist and fight back, they can and will legally kill you.

The is how statutory laws are enforced - there is always the threat of force.

The only time government force is warranted is if one individual has violated the inalienable rights to life, liberty of property of another individual. Otherwise, it's illegitimate and immoral.

Truth-Bringer

04-12-2007, 07:55 PM

Not because I say so, because your philosophy says so. I have put the question to you, now you can either address it, or continue to roll on the flooor laughing in defeat. This is the typical libertarian response. Laugher in lieu of defending your philosophy.

Oh, I'm defending my position quite well by exposing all of your lies, distortions and fallacies. And will continue to do so below.

The answer to your question is no, I do not own myself.

So you don't have control over your own actions?

No one owns me.

Yet you're saying the government de facto owns you - you prove it below.

If I owned myself, I could sell my body parts for profit. I clearly can't do that, so I clearly don't own them.

Why can't you sell your body parts for profit though? You can't BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WILL SEND MEN WITH GUNS TO ARREST YOU IF YOU TRY and control your behavior to make you do what THEY want you to do. Because they view you as their property to control. If no one else owns you, why are you allowing them to control your actions and your body?

Whoops... You've been pwned again, Shetland pony rider.

And I control my actions to a degree, exactly as you do. In any society, you are given a range of options that you may operate within.

"You are given" Given by who? Who decides and why? Why do some view other people as their property? What gives these people who "give a range of options" that right?

Aren't questions fun, Shetland pony rider? They tend to reveal when people don't know what the @#$% they're talking about...like you...

Rokerijdude11

04-12-2007, 08:14 PM

palerider

04-13-2007, 02:05 AM

ROTFL. Your Ad Hominem attacks are logical fallacies. Since you started it, I'm going to give as good as I get, so I will be returning the favor, but again, your "position" is completely and totally irrational and illogical. Probably a good case of Cognitive Dissonance that prevents you from seeing it. That and your over-sized ego, arrogant one.

Rolling on the floor laughing again? Is that how you typically avoid arguments? Do you know the definition of an ad homenim attack? Do you believe that what I said was one? If so, you are wrong. An ad homenim attack is a personal attack in lieu of an actual argument. I clearly made an actual argument in pointing out that most scientific experiments fail. Then I pointed out that a thinking adult wouldn't suggest "experimenting" with something like a national economy and legal system.

Regardless, NO TRUTH CAN BE PROVEN OUTSIDE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. So, since you allege most experiments fail, is your position that the scientific method should be done away with??? ROTFLMAO!!!! Keep talking, Shetland pony rider. You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Do you believe shouting makes a thing true? The truth makes a thing true. If you only accept the scientific method, then Thomas Jefferson performed the tax experiment and it failed. You do know, don't you, that it is insane to repeat the same experiment again expecting different results?

And more name calling? Do you believe that bolsters your position? You must be very young and quite immature if you believe it is cute.

What a complete and total fraud you are. Have you no intellectual honesty whatsoever? Or do you just enjoy deceiving yourself and others? You might need to seek out a good therapist..

What did I quantify in my original statement? I stated that the experiments would start very small scale in a town or other small area..

Do you believe for a second that the results of an economic experiment carried out on a very small scale like a town or a county would be valid when applied to a system as large and complex as the entire US?

Calling names and hurling insult in lieu of actual argument isn't helping your case here.

You really need to stop lying and you also need to apologize to the people of this forum for attempting to defraud them via distortions and fallacies.

You are one pathetic little lying dweeb.

So far, you have neither pointed out a lie, distortion, or fallacy on my part. Simply saying a thing doesn't make it true. If this represents actual argument in your mind, you are sadly mistaken.

vyo476

04-13-2007, 05:04 AM

palerider

04-13-2007, 11:41 AM

Yes, you are, you lying fraud. Conservatism is a completely flawed philosophy, as evidenced by your master Bush who purports to be a Conservative:

Government spending has gone up every single year under Bush.
The size of government has grown larger every single year under Bush.
The national debt has grown larger every single year under Bush.
The number of federal employees has increased under Bush.
The number of entitlement programs has increased under Bush.
The number of federal regulations has increased every year under Bush.
Government corruption has continued unabated among Republicans.
Bush has done nothing to create the smaller government he campaigned on.

To begin with, if you believe bush is a conservative then you know nothing of conservative principles and if you believe that any of these things represent them, you lack basic knowledge of conservative philosophy. If you are going to say that the philosophy of conservativism is flawed, then you must point out philosiophical flaws. These are neither philosophical in nature, or representative of the tenets of conservativism.

He has either compromised his principles, or he lied from the beginning...which is it?[/quote]

Who ever said that bush is a conservative? He is a republican. Do you believe the party platform of the republicans represents the conservative philosophy? Is that what you believe? It is clear that you are not armed for a philosophical debate.

...You're a lying fraud. Yes, I think we're all beginning to get the picture on that...

Childish, and not an actual argument at all. What lie have I told? What fraud have I perpetrated? Calling names doesn't constitute either argument, or defense of the points I have made.

So when 1% or less of the world's population believed the world was round, while the remaining 99% of the population believed it was flat - your argument is that the 1% weren't actually more knowledgeable than the 99%, but that the 99% saw the "immaturity" of the "round worlders" and therefore knew that the world was really flat? That would be an interesting concept... :rolleyes:

So your argument is that you are smarter than 99% of the population? The case you have made for yourself so far doesn't reflect that. Name calling and avoidance of points put to you doesn't make you look smart....or cute.

The people who believed the world was flat were uneducated, and had no frame of reference that would suggest to them that the world was any more than what they could see with their eyes. Hardly analogous to what people think of a political philosophy.

Unfortunately for you, your flawed view of things "just ain't so" - see, with many words there are multiple possible meanings. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary some time and just try to look through it. Some have pictures, so you might try those. Might be easier for you.

If your argument is that we are literal slaves of the state, it fails because in order to be a literal slave, one must be owned by another. If your argument is that we are figurative slaves of the state, then the argument is based on nothing more than sarcasm and not worthy of serious consideration. Are you arguing that we are literal or figurative slaves of the state

My definitions are from unbiased sources - dictionaries. I've presented the evidence. You're the one that has to prove that they're flawed. And you're missing the definition of something else - de facto. Maybe you missed that one when you were telling your teachers that they were "immature" so you didn't need to listen to them. De facto means: Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially established. So one can be a de facto slave, without actually being "legally owned."

So your argument is that we are figurative slaves of the state and is therefore based on nothing more than sarcasm?

When I tell you to go pick up a dictionary and read it, you abject moron, you better listen to me. See what an ignorant fool I can show you to be? And there you were thinking you were smarter than everybody else... :D :D :D

This defends your position, or proves your point how? Namecalling is a poor substitute for actual debate. If you are trying to be cute, you are failing. If you are trying to prove that calling names is an adequate substitute for actual debate, you are failing. If this is ment as an actual argument, it has failed.

Umm...no, as I just proved.

Proved what? You haven't philosophically, or scientifically proved anything. You have called names a lot and said that you are right a lot, but have yet to prove anything.

You are one seriously stupid fool, aren't you? You're trying to concoct one possible scenario and then claim that only your opinionated version can be true. ROTFMAO!!! Are you really this delusional? Get your ego under control, Shetland pony rider. It's totally misplaced. You do not set the circumstances for everything in the world, you arrogant fool. Again, the dictionary definitions include:

So again, you are stating that your argument is that we are not literal slaves of the state and that when you say that we are slaves, you are in essence being sarcastic and not pointing out any actual truth? If this is the case, then your entire position is without merit.

The nature of conservatism must be that you ignore valid definitions from valid sources or fail to understand them or experience Cognitive Dissonance when they disprove that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The nature of conservativism "must be"? Is that an admission that you don't actually know the tenets of conservative philosophy? You have made claims that you do, but here again, you are showing that you do not.

Partial slavery is the joining of two valid terms. If someone else controls 50% of everything I earn, I am a de facto partial slave to them for that percentage of my own labor or property that I do not control.

Yeah, and partial pregnancy is also the joining of two valid terms. Often two valid terms can't be jointed to create one valid concept. Either one is a slave and is owned by another or one is not. A slave does not have the option to leave his situation unless he flees illegally. Any of us has the option to leave any time we choose and therefore we are not even partial slaves.

Now refute that with a logical syllogism or shut your pie hole. And you better consider the full definitions before you make a fool out of yourself yet again...

I just did.

Why don't you admit you're an immoral fraud and leave? Who gave anyone else claim over the fruits of my labor or my property? Nobody. You need to stop stealing from people and trying to control them. In regards to upholding the inalienable rights of other individuals, you're a domestic enemy to the Constitution.

Because it would be untrue. By choosing to live here, you freely give over whatever percentage of your income that the government requires. Do you believe that you can join a country club, or any other organization and have free use of the facilities and priveledges associated with it and not pay the dues? If you want to be part of a society, then you, by default, are obligated to pay the dues the society has associated with membership in the society. There is no free lunch.

(continued)

palerider

04-13-2007, 11:42 AM

(continuation)

The American revolution was not supported by the majority, and many people support libertarian principles, they've just been deceived by you frauds in the two major parties. The truth will ultimately prevail over your lies. May take another 100 years, but it is worth the sacrifice.

Many people support pieces of the libertarian philosophy. There are overlaps between liberal philosophy and conservative philosophy and there are overlaps between liberal and libertarian philosophy and conservative and libertarian phlosophy. If we go down the list of the tenets of the libertarian philosophy people of most philosophies would agree on certain principles, but that is not the same as embracing the entire philosophy and calling oneself a libertarian or supporting a libertarian. Few embrace libertarian philosophy because it is terribly flawed and that is why libertarians get such a small percentage of the vote.

The opportunity for libertarianism to prosper was before the internet made information abundantly available to joe blow. It was possible in those days to withhold from public knowledge the destructive nature of libertarianism. Those days are gone. You have even less chance now of becoming a popular philosophy now than you had before. The ambassadors of libertarianism are all very much like you. Reflect on your incessant name calling and ask yourself how much you believe you have influenced anyone to seriously consider a philosophy such as yours.

This coming from a moron who constantly uses logical fallacies... ok...

You have yet to point out any? You repeat ad hominem over and over but don't seem to know what it means. Like slavery.

Another complete and total lie - "Everyone you have talked to?" LOL. What a pathetic little liar you are. One other individual made that false claim in this thread - false because I did answer his question. I can't magically grant you people reading comprehension skills.

Sorry, responding in a manner that doesn't answer the specific question put to you doesn't constitute an answer.

Oh, I've told no one I'm smart - nor do I claim to be. I'm simply noting - accurately - that you're a lying fraud and a moron who apparently can't see through all the logical fallacies you're making.

Which logicl falacies? Which lies? Saying a thing doesn't constitute proving a thing. So far, the extent of your argument has been to insinuate that I am lying without actually proving it and calling me names? You have not successfully defended a single point so far.

LOL. What is it with you? (Besides the numerous flaws I've already stated) Ownership of one's self and control of one's actions do not automatically redefine each of us as property. If we were to be defined as property - as self-owners, no one else would have legal claim to us. So, there's absolutely no point to your alleged "point"...

If I can claim ownership of myself, then I am, by default, property. Anyting that can be owned is property. I own various property that you have no claim to unless I owe you a debt, and then you may lay claim to whatever I own in payment of that debt. If I, myself, am the property of myself, and you may lay claim to whatever I own in payment of debt, then you may lay claim to me as well.

Unless of course, your position that we own ourselves is a figurative argument and not a literal one. If it is figurative, then, once again, your argument is not based in any sort of truth.

ROTFL. Thanks for pwning yourself, moron. The possibility that you're fearmongering about here ALREADY EXISTS, Einstein. Slavery and involuntary servitude are illegal, but what's still legal in our system? VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. That's why the income tax system works. If you sign on the dotted line and waive your rights, you can volunteer to be a servant. No problem.

So is the concept that you own yourself. You may not sell your body parts, you may not sell yourself in payment of any debt. Therefore, self ownership is illegal.

If someone wanted to voluntarily go and be a live in servant for someone else with no monetary compensation whatsoever, they are legally free to do so, right now, under our current legal system. It would be a stupid decision, but they could do it, if it was their voluntary choice. The fact that this isn't happening proves your "argument" is completely and totally invalid.

But we are not talking about the current legal system. We are talking about the potential of a libertarian legal system. The fact that it isn't happening now is because we are not operating under the libertarian view of what is and is not legal.

If you can't do any better than calling names and making baseles claims, then you really should cut and run while you can. It is neither intelligent, nor cute. I know young girls like to be cute, but you are failing here. Either debate the issue or hang it up.

palerider

04-13-2007, 11:48 AM

Sorry - you're lying and crying. I forget to include the full description that last time.

And you forgot to include anything that supports that position either.

Well, we've been elected to the state legislature before, but hey, why should you stop lying at this point? You're on a roll...;)

One in alaska and one in new hampshire (a state that libertarians had plans to invade and take over). In how many years? Hardly a feat worth crowing about.

Yes, it can't gain traction because you Republicans and Democrats have spread lies, distortions and falsehoods and used the power of government to either keep Libertarians off the ballot, or force them to spend all of their funds in an effort to gain simple access to the ballot - funds that could have otherwise been used for political advertising. As shown here:

So far, you haven't pointed out a single lie that I have told. You have behaved in a very immature manner, calling names and hurling insults in lieu of defending your philosophy. Libertarians all over the internet behave exactly as you do. Your own behavior is a reflection on libertarianism. Who do you believe has done the greater damage here? Me, pointing out philosophical flaws or you ranting and calling names rather than making an attempt to demonstrate that my thinking is incorrect with regard to the flaws within the philosophy.

palerider

04-13-2007, 11:56 AM

Again, it's accurate. With taxes for example. Taxation is not a contribution.

If you refuse to pay, you will receive threatening letters demanding payment. If you ignore them, eventually a case will be filed in court. If you ignore the summons and fail to appear, a warrant will be issued for your arrest and men with guns will come to your home to take you to jail. If you tell them you're not going and to leave your property, they will forcibly try to take you in. If you physically resist and fight back, they can and will legally kill you.

If you wish to belong to any organization, and society is certainly an organization, you will be expected to live by the bylaws of that organization and if there are dues associated with belonging to that organization, you will be expected to pay them. Failure to pay will result in expulsion. If you behave as you suggest in the face of law officers doing their duty, then you should expect to recieve less than a friendly greeting and the law clearly states that should you actively fight an officer of the law, they may respond with deadly force.

The fact that you want a free ride does not release you from the obligations that you accept if you wish to be a part of the society. You are perfectly free to leave this nation and seek one that more closely suits your preference at any time. Once again, proving that you are not a slave since literal slaves are not free to make such choices.

The is how statutory laws are enforced - there is always the threat of force.

There is threat of force if you belong to any organization and fail to live by its rules and bylaws.

The only time government force is warranted is if one individual has violated the inalienable rights to life, liberty of property of another individual. Otherwise, it's illegitimate and immoral.

That thinking only applies in a society that thinks as you do and has laws that reflect that sort of thinking. Such is not the case in this society. If you want to belong to it, you have a responsibility to accept the obligations that go with membership.

palerider

04-13-2007, 12:10 PM

Oh, I'm defending my position quite well by exposing all of your lies, distortions and fallacies. And will continue to do so below.

So far, you have defended nothing. You have called names, you have hurled insult and you have made the claim that I have lied and made logical falacies but have yet to point out any.

So you don't have control over your own actions?

I have control of my actions and may make choices within certain boundries. Having control over a thing doesn't constitute ownership of a thing. We do not own ourselves because human beings are not property to be owned. This is the major flaw within libertarianism.

Yet you're saying the government de facto owns you - you prove it below.

de facto - in fact; in reality. In reality, no one owns me. Ownership of human beings is illegal because human beings are not property.

in fact; in realityWhy can't you sell your body parts for profit though? You can't BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WILL SEND MEN WITH GUNS TO ARREST YOU IF YOU TRY and control your behavior to make you do what THEY want you to do. Because they view you as their property to control. If no one else owns you, why are you allowing them to control your actions and your body?[/quote]

I can't sell my body parts, because they are not my property. If they were property, then not only could I sell them, but someone else could claim them in payment of debt or damage. Human beings are not property. To suggest that we are is to suggest that ownership of ourselves could be transferred to someone else thus making us a literal slave. The paradox of libertarianism raises its ugly head again.

"You are given" Given by who? Who decides and why? Why do some view other people as their property? What gives these people who "give a range of options" that right?

Aren't questions fun, Shetland pony rider? They tend to reveal when people don't know what the @#$% they're talking about...like you...

By who? Are you unaware that our government is we the people. We the people decide what one may and may not do if one wants to be a member of society. To say that you must pay taxes to support the society doesn't make you a slave, it is only a statement of what you must accept if you want to be a member of this society. You are perfectly free to go somewhere else if this society doesn't suit you. And we as a society give the lawmakers the right. Lawmakers are elected by the citizens. Don't you know how our government works?

Do you believe that you are the property of a country club that you might join just because they expect for you to pay dues?

And once again, do you believe that name calling is cute? Are you under the impression that it is an acceptable substitute for actual argument? Do you really believe it helps your case?

palerider

04-13-2007, 12:13 PM

I knew a storm was brewing. Damn Boys im in love!!! T-B Hot damn have you really bloomed throughout your learning I am
impressed with your new found vigor!! A gal after my heart
you have come a verry long way in a relative short time. you have surpassed me in your Quest.

Name calling and hurled insult represents a blooming of learning? Thus far, she hasn't philosophically defended libertarianism against a single charge that I have made. She has completely failed to prove in any way that the seeds of literal slavery lie within the libertarian philosophy.

If you mean that she has become a better name caller than you, then yes, you are right. She is a great name caller but intellectually, she has brought a knife to a gun fight because name calling is no substitute for intelligent debate.

Bring the truth like you always do

Which truth? What truth has she brought?

Truth-Bringer

04-14-2007, 10:53 AM

You're living in a democracy now,

Even your thread buddy, Shetland Pony Rider knows that's not true. And I agree with him on that:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3115

Parties are driven by, obviously, the need for political gain; we are driven by personal morals and ideals. If you are suggesting that we're corrupt in some way, I'd like to know how posting on an internet politics forum is going to deliver to us any type of corrupt gain.

I am suggesting that you will compromise your principles for political expediency, and you readily demonstrate that if you vote for Republicans and Democrats.

I don't see an answer to how the government holds accountable those who violate its laws in there anywhere.

Oh, it's there, but I'll simplify it further on the next reply.

Truth-Bringer

04-14-2007, 10:54 AM

You didn't answer my question. How does the government hold accountable those who violate your principles?

I did answer your question, but I'll simplify it further: Via law enforcement and the court system. The same way those who violated the law were held accountable under Thomas Jefferson's administration.

Truth-Bringer

04-14-2007, 11:00 AM

Rolling on the floor laughing again? Is that how you typically avoid arguments?

No, that's how I typically respond when reading your nonsense. If you don't want me to laugh, then stop typing things that are utterly stupid.

Do you know the definition of an ad homenim attack? Do you believe that what I said was one? If so, you are wrong. An ad homenim attack is a personal attack in lieu of an actual argument. I clearly made an actual argument in pointing out that most scientific experiments fail. Then I pointed out that a thinking adult wouldn't suggest "experimenting" with something like a national economy and legal system.

Once again, you are lying. As anyone can go back on this thread and see, your ad hominem attacks against libertarians began well before your statement about scientific experiments - which was a fallacious argument anyway. So we have ANOTHER PROVEN LIE on your part. Again, are we actually supposed to take you seriously? Is that what you actually want? You need to start taking your meds again...

Do you believe shouting makes a thing true?

No. But apparently you believe your lies are true. Again, you really need to take some time off and go see a therapist. You have some serious mental issues.

The truth makes a thing true. If you only accept the scientific method, then Thomas Jefferson performed the tax experiment and it failed.

Another lie. It didn't fail. The United States became extremely prosperous and Americans were the richest people in the world at the time with the greatest opportunities to improve their financial situations. The government was easily funded by tariff revenues. And Jefferson was re-elected by a large majority. The successors in his political party went on to win several elections by staying true to his limited government principles.

You do know, don't you, that it is insane to repeat the same experiment again expecting different results?

It would also be insane to keep repeating the same nonsense and lies over and over again, yet you keep doing it. So does that mean you're insane?

And more name calling? Do you believe that bolsters your position? You must be very young and quite immature if you believe it is cute.

You started it, Shetland pony rider. As I told you, I'm going to give as good as I get.

Do you believe for a second that the results of an economic experiment carried out on a very small scale like a town or a county would be valid when applied to a system as large and complex as the entire US?

No, Pale Fraud, I don't. That's why I specifically mentioned that with each successive experiment you would increase the area size. Again, you argue against only what you want to misquote - that's a STRAW MAN.

Calling names and hurling insult in lieu of actual argument isn't helping your case here.

My case needs no help. You're the one getting trounced. I'm just also letting you know you're a moron. That's not calling you a name. That's just stating a fact. Someone needs to let you know. 'Cause whoever told you you were smart - THEY LIED.

So far, you have neither pointed out a lie, distortion, or fallacy on my part. Simply saying a thing doesn't make it true. If this represents actual argument in your mind, you are sadly mistaken.

You are the one who is sadly DELUSIONAL, as you've only presented distortions and fallacies. As I said, GO SEE A THERAPIST.

Truth-Bringer

04-14-2007, 11:52 AM

To begin with, if you believe bush is a conservative then you know nothing of conservative principles and if you believe that any of these things represent them, you lack basic knowledge of conservative philosophy.

I don't believe Bush is a conservative, but BUSH SAYS HE IS A CONSERVATIVE. So is he stupid or a liar?

Why would a conservative such as yourself vote for Bush if he's not a conservative and you know he's not? Are you saying you'll compromise your principles?

Who ever said that bush is a conservative?

HE DID!!!!!!!! Hello!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, is he stupid or a liar???

He is a republican. Do you believe the party platform of the republicans represents the conservative philosophy? Is that what you believe? It is clear that you are not armed for a philosophical debate.

No, I don't believe that - but if they don't represent conservatism, and you call yourself a conservative, why do you support them?????? Is it because you're a sell out? LOL.

By the way, I noticed you didn't even attempt to defend any of the government actions I posted that have happened under your darling Republicans.

Childish, and not an actual argument at all. What lie have I told? What fraud have I perpetrated?

Numerous ones...as I continue to demonstrate. Saying it didn't happen doesn't mean you didn't lie. And you're the childish one my friend, cause you can't own up to your own distortions and deception.

So your argument is that you are smarter than 99% of the population? The case you have made for yourself so far doesn't reflect that. Name calling and avoidance of points put to you doesn't make you look smart....or cute.

No, that is not my argument, moron. When are you going to stop with these distortions??? My rebuttal refuted your false assertion that lack of support by the vast majority means libertarianism must be flawed, or not worthy of support, or any other negative point you're trying to put forward. As I proved, support of an idea by the vast majority does not mean the idea is true, based solely on the support of the vast majority.

The vast majority of people also believe in many bizarre religious systems that cannot be proven true by any scientific or verifiable means.

Again, you lost that point...as you've lost all of them...now lie about it like you always do.

The people who believed the world was flat were uneducated, and had no frame of reference that would suggest to them that the world was any more than what they could see with their eyes. Hardly analogous to what people think of a political philosophy.

They are both belief systems - so they are analgous. Whenever anyone challenged the flat earth belief or that the universe revolved around the earth - they were ridiculed, threatened and/or shouted down by people like you. When you will stop trying to distort the truth once your argument has been beaten?

If your argument is that we are literal slaves of the state, it fails because in order to be a literal slave, one must be owned by another.

As I said before, there can be de facto ownership without actual legal ownership. And there can also be de facto partial ownership.

So your argument is that we are figurative slaves of the state and is therefore based on nothing more than sarcasm?

It's based on the fact that over 50% of the vast majority's income is taken from them at gunpoint if necessary and we basically have to ask the government's permission to do all manner of peaceful and/or honest behavior. And in addition, we continue to lose freedoms in this country at a slow but steady pace.

This defends your position, or proves your point how? Namecalling is a poor substitute for actual debate.

I'm not calling you a name. I'm telling you a fact. You're a moron. That is verifiable by the nonsense you've posted on this thread.

Proved what?

I proved that the dictionary definitions I supplied refuted that your description of slavery was not complete and not the only valid definition. I told you it was your job to refute those definitions if you claimed they were false. Since you ignored them, it's obvious that YOU CAN'T DO THAT. So, again, please stop trying to defraud the good people of this forum by failing to address the argument at hand and acting as if it didn't happen. What a nut job you are...

You haven't philosophically, or scientifically proved anything. You have called names a lot and said that you are right a lot, but have yet to prove anything.

Shetland pony rider, you need to learn that DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt...

The nature of conservativism "must be"? Is that an admission that you don't actually know the tenets of conservative philosophy?

CHRIST!!! Is there anything you won't distort??? ROTFL. I just threw your own "point" back at you as a joke...and you're so desperate for some type of gain against me, you pick it up and try to run with it... Hilarious! You really need to get a life, Shetland pony rider.

Yeah, and partial pregnancy is also the joining of two valid terms. Often two valid terms can't be jointed to create one valid concept. Either one is a slave and is owned by another or one is not. A slave does not have the option to leave his situation unless he flees illegally. Any of us has the option to leave any time we choose and therefore we are not even partial slaves.

I just did.

No you didn't. You proved that two valid terms can be joined that WON'T create a valid concept, such as "partial pregnancy." However, you did not refute the logic that one can be a de facto partial slave if half of one's income and/or property is taken by threat of force from another. And that's the real point in question.

And your definition that "A slave does not have the option to leave his situation unless he flees illegally" does not accurately reflect the definitions I provided earlier - so your point is ONCE AGAIN...fallacious. And by the way the U.S. is the only country in the world that taxes it's citizens if they leave and go to other countries - and it also forbids anyone from renouncing their citizenship for the purposes of avoiding taxation - so it seems massa can still take our money even if we're off the plantation.

By choosing to live here, you freely give over whatever percentage of your income that the government requires.

So if you were born in an area with 100% taxation, you would support staying there and continuing to work and pay 100% of your income in taxes because that's what the government wanted you to do? Is that your position?

If all the governments on earth then passed a law saying that each citizen had to murder one child under the age of 5 once per year, would you do it since you "chose to live there"?

Do you believe that you can join a country club, or any other organization and have free use of the facilities and priveledges associated with it and not pay the dues?

Fallacious comparison: When someone joins a country club, they do so KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY. Your local country club can't send armed men to your home to make you pay the club dues if you don't want to join their club. But government can send armed men to your home and force you to be a part of their "club." You seem to be trying to spout the "Social Contract" nonsense. All contracts have to be entered into KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY in order to be valid.

If you want to be part of a society, then you, by default, are obligated to pay the dues the society has associated with membership in the society. There is no free lunch.

There is no society - that's the reificiation fallacy.

Now lie to everyone again and tell them you haven't made any fallacious arguments.

You pathetic lying fraud.

Truth-Bringer

04-14-2007, 12:50 PM

(continuation)
Many people support pieces of the libertarian philosophy.

Why do many people support pieces of a philosophy you claim is flawed, Shetland pony rider? LOL.

Few embrace libertarian philosophy because it is terribly flawed and that is why libertarians get such a small percentage of the vote.

Once again, this "argument" of yours has already been proven fallacious. And yet here you are, erroneously stating it again as if nothing happened... Like I said, DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt...

As I said in the previous post:

"My rebuttal refuted your false assertion that lack of support by the vast majority means libertarianism must be flawed, or not worthy of support, or any other negative point you're trying to put forward. As I proved, support of an idea by the vast majority does not mean the idea is true, based solely on the support of the vast majority."

Reflect on your incessant name calling and ask yourself how much you believe you have influenced anyone to seriously consider a philosophy such as yours.

There has been no name calling. I have described you accurately. Reflect on your numerous lies, distortions and fallacious arguments and ask yourself how much you believe you have influenced anyone here to take you seriously. You're a joke.

You repeat ad hominem over and over but don't seem to know what it means. Like slavery.

Like when you ignored valid definitions of slavery I presented that supported my position and proved my point instead of yours? LOL.

Sorry, responding in a manner that doesn't answer the specific question put to you doesn't constitute an answer.

I just proved your earlier statement that "Everyone you have talked to?" was a lie since only one other individual made that claim in this thread. And then you had to lie about that as well... LOL.

Which logicl falacies? Which lies?

ROTFL... DENIAL, DENIAL, DENIAL. They've already been presented, and I'm sure more are to come.

If I can claim ownership of myself, then I am, by default, property. Anyting that can be owned is property. I own various property that you have no claim to unless I owe you a debt, and then you may lay claim to whatever I own in payment of that debt. If I, myself, am the property of myself, and you may lay claim to whatever I own in payment of debt, then you may lay claim to me as well.

See, that's what the INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE/PEONAGE laws corrected though. So that one person may not be taken as the property of another. If you want to define yourself as property, then you are only property IN RELATION TO YOUR SELF-OWNERSHIP as far as the libertarian philosophy is concerned.

Are you really this stupid? Has this been your point all along???

So is the concept that you own yourself. You may not sell your body parts, you may not sell yourself in payment of any debt. Therefore, self ownership is illegal.

You may not sell body parts in our current legal system, because the government is usurping your rights of self-ownership and threatening you with force if you attempt to exercise those rights of self-ownership.

You may not sell yourself as payment of any debt because that would be considered involuntary servitude and/or peonage since a monetary/debt transaction would take place and form the basis of the decision. That would make the person holding you guilty of a crime. That would apply in the current system and in a libertarian system.

But you can voluntarily agree to be a servant if there is no debt at issue and no money exchanges hand and if you agree to work for no compensation - which is legal in the current system as voluntary servitude.

But we are not talking about the current legal system. We are talking about the potential of a libertarian legal system.

Oh, we are indeed talking about the current legal system, because what you're falsely claiming will be a problem in a libertarian legal system is already legal now....and it's not a problem.

The fact that it isn't happening now is because we are not operating under the libertarian view of what is and is not legal.

ROTLFMAO. This has been one entertaining encounter. Never in my life have I met someone on a forum so completely in denial. Wow.

As I said, the voluntary servitude that you were fearmongering about is completely legal in our present system, and since it isn't happening now, that means your argument is dead. Since, in a libertarian system, slavery and involuntary servitude will also continue to be illegal.

If you can't do any better than calling names and making baseles claims, then you really should cut and run while you can. It is neither intelligent, nor cute. I know young girls like to be cute, but you are failing here. Either debate the issue or hang it up.

By Jove, I've got it! Your ability to remain in complete and total denial must mean that you're a politician!

Truth-Bringer

04-14-2007, 12:54 PM

One in alaska and one in new hampshire (a state that libertarians had plans to invade and take over). In how many years? Hardly a feat worth crowing about.

Oh, I'm not "crowing" about anything. I posted that only as proof that your earlier statement on page 3 of this thread that "A political group that can't get elected to any office higher than city council and dog catcher..." WAS A LIE.

So far, you haven't pointed out a single lie that I have told.

LOL. See above...among numerous others. You are in denial, Shetland pony rider. And you're a pathetic liar.

Truth-Bringer

04-14-2007, 01:04 PM

There is threat of force if you belong to any organization and fail to live by its rules and bylaws.

Again, an erroneous comparison because there is no choice where government is concerned. Government claims to have power over you at birth. It gives you no choice in the matter. And in our system, the government won't allow you to leave if you seek to escape taxes, so there is no choice as far as having your money/property stolen.

Truth-Bringer

04-14-2007, 01:39 PM

you have made the claim that I have lied and made logical falacies but have yet to point out any.

Guess again, Sherlock... LOL.

I have control of my actions and may make choices within certain boundries.

Who determines the boundaries? Libertarians say people have a right to control all of their actions as long as those actions are peaceful, honest and voluntary. The only time government steps in is if people initiate violence, fraud or coercion to prevent other people from living their lives in peaceful, honest, and/or voluntary manner.

Under what authority do you claim the right to limit the peaceful, honest, and or voluntary actions of other human beings as long as they're not interfering with your rights? By majority vote?

Having control over a thing doesn't constitute ownership of a thing. We do not own ourselves because human beings are not property to be owned. This is the major flaw within libertarianism.

The definition presented is of course just one possible definition. Since you seem to be incapable of doing anything other than obfuscating and distorting the argument though, I'll just stick with my statement above and let you answer those questions. We'll reframe the debate to try and simplify things further.

de facto - in fact; in reality. In reality, no one owns me. Ownership of human beings is illegal because human beings are not property.

LOL. Are you simple? I was using de facto as a rebuttal to your legality statement. You are obviously unaware of the difference between the concepts of de facto and de jure.

I can't sell my body parts, because they are not my property. If they were property, then not only could I sell them, but someone else could claim them in payment of debt or damage. Human beings are not property. To suggest that we are is to suggest that ownership of ourselves could be tra