Challenge to Libertarians

I have recently engaged in some "conversation" with a libertarian on this board. He has made some claims and spouted the libertarian line accompanied by a plethora of cut and paste arguments in lieu of any of his own.

I am making the statement that within the philosophy of libertarianism, there exists the very real possibility of both voluntary and involuntary slavery and based on that very flaw, the philosophy doesn't warrant serious consideration by thinking people.

In lieu of any actual argument, I got statements lile "roflmao" as if such responses constitute any sort of actual defense. Libertarians universally believe that they are the smartest people in the room and as such, I am issuing a challent to truthbringer and Rokerijdude11 to defend their philosophy by proving philosophically that libertarianism doesn't hold within it the very real possibility of enslaving human beings.

 

Oh, here we go again...At what point are we beating a dead horse here?

 

I could see how in the other boards this question could get lost (or ignored) among all of the other garbage being tossed around.

Here, palerider is making a clear challenge to the libertarians, one that they can't avoid. I'm looking forward to reading this thread...

 

Libertarians claim to be a political movement based on and entirely rooted in making us free. That being the case, the possibility of enslaving individuals while following this philosophy would create an irreconcilable paradox within the philosophy thus rendering it irrelavent as a serious political philosophy.

The heart of this paradox is the libertarian conviction that we "own" ourselves. If we do indeed own ourselves, then ourselves may rightly be defined as property. If myself is property, then I could legally sell myself to another individual and thus become the property of that individual. If I am the property of another individual, then I am a slave.

By the same token, if I own myself, and myself is indeed real property, then it stands to reason that should I find myself liable for damage to another individual that is in excess of my net worth, all of my property may be siezed in order to satisfy the debt and if myself is counted among my property, then myself may be involuntarily siezed as property to satisfy the debt. If the property defined as myself is siezed to satisfy a debt, then myself becomes the property of the one who siezed me and I become an involuntary slave.

One of the cornerstones of libertarianism is self ownership, but one may only own that which may be defined as property and no property is beyond the grasp of one who has the resources with which to buy it, or of one who is owed a legal debt.

If the libertarian philosophy does not hold within its tenets the possibility of slavery, both voluntary, and involuntary, then I challenge the both of you, and any other libertarians who may be here to prove it.

 

This area is reserved for political debate is it not? Libertarians universally believe they are the smartes guys in the room. I offer the chance for them to prove it. I am interested to see if they can stay on topic and prove philosophically that the seeds of slavery don't exist within the philosophy that they claim is the only one that can truely set us free.

If you aren't interested, you certainly don't have to join in.

 

I have? please show us where this is ace?

 

I havent Cut-N-pasted anything about Libretarians your Lying plain and simple

 

I se what a superb debate tactic to flat out LIE cut-n-paste? I did really about libretarians? where exactly is that????

 

I believe the "cut and paste" element pertains more to Truth-Bringer than you, Rokerijdude, but as it is palerider's argument I have no way of knowing for sure.

And palerider, the reason I felt like this was beating a dead horse is because this same argument is going in two other threads and it's starting to feel like we're just banging our heads against the wall. I in no way meant to discourage the propagation of actual political arguments and I do wish to contribute. Call it a moment of exasperation, if you will.

 

Then it stands to reason, doesn't it, that you are answering questions that weren't put to you. Why are you talking if you have nothing more to add than to point out what the rest of us already know? That I wasn't talking to you.

Since you have joined in, can you philosophically prove that libertarainism doesn't have the very real capacity within it to reinstitute slavery or not? That is the topic here either stick to it or go start your own thread.

 

Again, you weren't being talked to. Feel free to join in a philosophical discussion of libertarianism if you care to try and defend it.

 

Since truth bringer has the habit of trying to duck specific issues in lieu of long rants that don't address the actual topic, I thought I would start a thread that addresses the most serious flaw within the philosophy and attempt to keep the discussion on topic. Deviation from the topic will demonstrate a lack of ability to defend his own philosophy and illustrate the fact that it is a line of thinking that doesn't warrant serious consideration.

 

more opinion based facts superb

 

BTW thats a Woman handing you your shorts here fellas

 

No, you've recently spouted some nonsense towards me and ran from my questions, evidence and arguments. Now, like the good little fraud that you are, you're seeking to further convolute and skew things by starting an entirely new, and unnecessary, thread in which to spout more nonsense, unnecessary complexity and/or logical fallacies.

For those who want to see Shetland pony rider get totally dismantled and revealed as a complete and total fraud...by a girl...just go back to the Libertarianism in One Sentence thread.