Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Most Dangerous Superstition
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Most Dangerous Superstition (Read 9949 times)
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: The Most Dangerous Superstition
Reply #30 - Feb 19th, 2013 at 3:55pm
Print Post  
Awesome wrote on Feb 14th, 2013 at 1:08pm:
I am a Christian (just like Tom Woods, Ron Paul, and Andrew Napolitano!)


I'm not really familiar with Woods or Napolitino's beliefs but Ron Paul opposes inalienable Rights and endorses federal aid to education based upon his religious beliefs and gets Two Big Negative Check Marks from me for that.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1506
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: The Most Dangerous Superstition
Reply #31 - Feb 20th, 2013 at 4:15am
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Feb 19th, 2013 at 3:55pm:
I'm not really familiar with Woods or Napolitino's beliefs but Ron Paul opposes inalienable Rights and endorses federal aid to education based upon his religious beliefs and gets Two Big Negative Check Marks from me for that.


Is the mental construct of "inalienable rights" useful?  What good did a claim to rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do boys who were drafted to fight in Vietnam?  What good did claims to human rights do the minorities murdered by the Third Reich?  What good do they do the innocent bystanders killed by helicopter gunships and drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Ron Paul does endorse The Golden Rule, which is also a mental construct, but at least it has some value in that if you adhere to it and don't lie to, steal from, and otherwise mistreat other people, you don't have to spend as much of your time being fearful and watching your back.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: The Most Dangerous Superstition
Reply #32 - Feb 20th, 2013 at 10:38am
Print Post  
Tom Palven wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 4:15am:
Is the mental construct of "inalienable rights" useful? What good did a claim to rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do boys who were drafted to fight in Vietnam? What good did claims to human rights do the minorities murdered by the Third Reich? What good do they do the innocent bystanders killed by helicopter gunships and drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan?


Many make the mistake of confusing an inalienable Right with an inviolable Right and they are not the same. Inalienable Rights can and are violated all of the time and providing cases where this happens does not deny that the Right exists but merely addresses violations of the inalienable Right.

As for what purpose the identification of inalienable Rights serve it's rather simple. The political foundation of the United States was based upon the expressed role of government being the protections of our inalienable (unalienable) Rights. If we don't identify what they are then what is the government mandated to protect? By analogy I can protect my "Home" but if there isn't a definition of "Home" then I can protect nothing.


Tom Palven wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 4:15am:
Ron Paul does endorse The Golden Rule, which is also a mental construct, but at least it has some value in that if you adhere to it and don't lie to, steal from, and otherwise mistreat other people, you don't have to spend as much of your time being fearful and watching your back.


The Golden Rule is bullshit though because what someone might want "done to them" often doesn't correspond to what others want done to them. For example, in the movie Riddick, the "golden rule" is basically "might makes right" and that is all well and good for the strong but it rather a piss poor condition for the weak. A monarchy is based upon the "golden rule" that established the ancestry one person gives them more power and authority than someone else.

Ron Paul has expressly stated that he believes the States should make the laws that either allow, prohibit or limit abortion completely disregarding the inalienable Rights of the Person. Even if we were to establish the legal precedent that both the woman and the preborn had in inalienable Right of Sovereignty then there has to be a division between the two. The two Rights cannot conflict with each other as inalienable Rights cannot infringe upon an inalienable Right of another person. That would violate the very definition of an inalienable Right.

Where does the Right of Sovereignty for the woman end and the Right of Sovereignty for the preborn begin because they cannot overlap which would create a conflict.

Ron Paul is wrong to leave this to "majority rule" in the States which is what he proposes. As we know the States often violate the inalienable Rights of the Person based upon majority decisions often fueled by religious opinion (that violates the inalienable Right of the Person to their own Right of Opinion or Thought).

It has already been established by Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v United States that laws cannot be based upon religious opinion but instead that laws can only be established based upon the acts of a person. The fact that many Christians believe that abortion is a sin that is not grounds for laws that prohibit abortion. Laws related to abortion must be based upon the protections of the inalienable Rights of the Person and currently only the Woman is recognized as a person under the US Constitution.

I actually support a Constitutional Amendment recognizing the "personhood" of the Preborn but such an amendment would have to also establish when during the pregnancy that "personhood" is established which would limit the Right of Sovereignty of the Woman and then create the Right of Sovereignty of the "preborn" and would probably also need to address any possible exceptions (e.g. if the life of the woman is endangered). 

Once agian though this is not the expressed opinion of Ron Paul who completely ignores the inalienable Rights of the Person in his proposal that the States, based upon a simple majority rule of opinion without regard for inalienable Rights, establish laws related to abortion.

Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian because he does not support the inalienable Rights of a Person and I've pointed this out before. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1506
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: The Most Dangerous Superstition
Reply #33 - Feb 20th, 2013 at 4:21pm
Print Post  
I'm reminded that Al Capone allegedly said "You can get more with just a few kind words and a gun than you can with just a few kind words. Seems you can also protect yourself better with a bunch of inalienable rights and a gun than you can with just the inalienable rights.

When you consider what Kelo vs New London, CT did to property rights, what droning of an American citizen did to due process, what the persecution of Julian Assange says about the First Amendment, what the no-knock laws from 1972 on and the Patriot Act provisions say about the whole Bill of Rights including the 9th and 10th Amendments, exactly what inalienable rights are left to protect? If you were born a sovereign individual with a full set of rights, the only thing that a government can do is take them away, it can't provide any extra ones. Private insurance companies and private security agencies can protect your person and assets with voluntary contractual arrangements. To coerce money though taxation in order to offer you "protection" is a violation of your sovereignty, isn't it?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2060
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: The Most Dangerous Superstition
Reply #34 - Feb 20th, 2013 at 4:48pm
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Feb 19th, 2013 at 3:55pm:
I'm not really familiar with Woods or Napolitino's beliefs but Ron Paul opposes inalienable Rights and endorses federal aid to education based upon his religious beliefs and gets Two Big Negative Check Marks from me for that.



Ron Paul endorses federal aid to education? Doesn't support inalienable rights? Not a libertarian? Hah, I have read a lot of your lengthy and redundant posts here, and I don't even believe you are the least bit qualified to determine what is a libertarian, and what is not. You live in your bubble, and I'll live in mine.

The fact of the matter is, Ron Paul has been a billion times more libertarian in Washington than anyone living. And you say he is not qualified to be a libertarian? You're the most statist of all the regulars here.  Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Awesome
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline


Posts: 377
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Joined: Dec 1st, 2012
Re: The Most Dangerous Superstition
Reply #35 - Feb 21st, 2013 at 2:09am
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Feb 19th, 2013 at 3:55pm:
I'm not really familiar with Woods or Napolitino's beliefs but Ron Paul opposes inalienable Rights and endorses federal aid to education based upon his religious beliefs and gets Two Big Negative Check Marks from me for that.

You probably wouldn't like Napolitano very much, because he doesn't think that a Woman has the Right to Kill her Child before he is Born. You're also a bit statist for him: he admitted that taxation is theft. (See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA_Yl_JCdFg)

@Your Golden Rule comment: The Golden Rule tells you to treat others how you want to be treated. You want to make sure people get your consent when they do things to you and your property. Thus, you want to find out how they want to be treated, which even by the Golden Rule would be better than just assuming that they want what you want.

Ron Paul's position on abortion is that the federal government shouldn't be a part of it. The state governments can choose whether to control it or not. Abortion is NOT a "Right" because a woman only has the right to murder whatever is her property, and if the fetus is her property, then she has apparently the right to keep it forever (as her property), which is absurd.

If "Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian" then you are a big statist Nazi. You mentioned before that if I, say, start a business, then the government should control the ethnicity of the people I employ.
  

NSA agents, if you can read this, your mother will die tomorrow.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: The Most Dangerous Superstition
Reply #36 - Feb 21st, 2013 at 5:15am
Print Post  
Apparently some don't know the definition of "statist" (advocate for government controlling economic and/or social policy) which I have never advocated.

Prohibitions, such as those against same-sex marriage and abortion, are "statist" positions where government is imposing a social policy on the individual and I oppose both.

The primary role of government in the United States (which was founded based upon libertarianism) is to protect the inalienable Rights of the Person. In doing so I have always advocated that if, in protecting our Inalienable Rights, a pragmetic necessity exists then an infringement upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights can be justified but such infringements should be to the least extent possible to provide those protections.

For example I endorse incarceration to protect us from those that have demonstrated that they will violate our Rights but oppose incarceration as a form of punishment. I oppose the death penalty because it's exclusively related to punishment and is not necessary to protect us from even the most heinous of individuals. I oppose all "victimless" crime laws because if there is no victim then the law cannot be justified as being a pragmatic necessity to protect our Rights.

I have taken a position on gun control where the government should only exercise infringements upon our Freedom to Exercise our Right of Self-Defense creates a public danger. A "public danger" is a threat to our "person" and pragmatic limitions can be imposed but they should be to the least extent possible to provide for that protection.

Unlike some I don't state that taxes are theft but instead that they are a contractual obligation. Our State and Federal Constitutions are CONTRACTS and in them we, the People, have authorized our government to collect taxes. If we don't like the taxes then these contracts can be amended or even abolished just like a corporate contract (i.e. the Corporate Charter) based upon the "conditions of the contract" which are expressed within the contracts themselves. If the we don't like the US government then our respective States can call a Constitutional Convention and abolish the United States. All it requires is 3/4ths of the States to abolish the US government and for those States to distribute the debts and assets of the federal govenment between them.

And yes, of all of the members of Congress Ron Paul has demonstated more "libertarian" beliefs than any other but he has also demonstrated that he is not a libertarian. He opposes the Inalienable Right of Citizenship established by Jus Soli. He would allow States to violate the inalienable Rights of a Woman related to abortion. He has advocated federal funding for education (which I oppose) by endorsing vouchers so that families can send their children to private schools for religious indoctrination (which I refer to as brainwashing and consider to be a form of child abuse which violates the inalienable Rights of the Child).

Libertarianism does not endorse anarchy nor does it believe in "private law and government" but instead relies on the Social Contract where the government is dedicated to the protections of our inalienable Rights. It accepts that limitations on our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights is required but that these limitations must be based upon a pragmatic necessity to protect our Rights and also be to the least extent possible in providing that protection. The libertarian philosophy endorses laisse faire capitalism which is not trade without regulation but instead is trade with those regulations necessary to protect our inalienable Rights (which would include environmental regulations as no entity has a "right to pollute'). Government also has a responsibility to esnure that the violations of our inalienable Rights are mitigated either by the private sector or by government itself.

No one on this forum can point to anything I've said and justify applying the term "statist" to me as I oppose any government economic or social policy that is unrelated to the protections of our inalienable Rights as a Person. Even when I do advocate intervention to protect our inalienable Rights I always advocate that such infringements be to the least extent possible to provide for the protection.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1506
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: The Most Dangerous Superstition
Reply #37 - Feb 21st, 2013 at 7:21am
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Feb 21st, 2013 at 5:15am:
Apparently some don't know the definition of "statist" (advocate for government controlling economic and/or social policy) which I have never advocated.

Prohibitions, such as those against same-sex marriage and abortion, are "statist" positions where government is imposing a social policy on the individual and I oppose both.

The primary role of government in the United States (which was founded based upon libertarianism) is to protect the inalienable Rights of the Person. In doing so I have always advocated that if, in protecting our Inalienable Rights, a pragmetic necessity exists then an infringement upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights can be justified but such infringements should be to the least extent possible to provide those protections.

For example I endorse incarceration to protect us from those that have demonstrated that they will violate our Rights but oppose incarceration as a form of punishment. I oppose the death penalty because it's exclusively related to punishment and is not necessary to protect us from even the most heinous of individuals. I oppose all "victimless" crime laws because if there is no victim then the law cannot be justified as being a pragmatic necessity to protect our Rights.

I have taken a position on gun control where the government should only exercise infringements upon our Freedom to Exercise our Right of Self-Defense creates a public danger. A "public danger" is a threat to our "person" and pragmatic limitions can be imposed but they should be to the least extent possible to provide for that protection.

Unlike some I don't state that taxes are theft but instead that they are a contractual obligation. Our State and Federal Constitutions are CONTRACTS and in them we, the People, have authorized our government to collect taxes. If we don't like the taxes then these contracts can be amended or even abolished just like a corporate contract (i.e. the Corporate Charter) based upon the "conditions of the contract" which are expressed within the contracts themselves. If the we don't like the US government then our respective States can call a Constitutional Convention and abolish the United States. All it requires is 3/4ths of the States to abolish the US government and for those States to distribute the debts and assets of the federal govenment between them.

And yes, of all of the members of Congress Ron Paul has demonstated more "libertarian" beliefs than any other but he has also demonstrated that he is not a libertarian. He opposes the Inalienable Right of Citizenship established by Jus Soli. He would allow States to violate the inalienable Rights of a Woman related to abortion. He has advocated federal funding for education (which I oppose) by endorsing vouchers so that families can send their children to private schools for religious indoctrination (which I refer to as brainwashing and consider to be a form of child abuse which violates the inalienable Rights of the Child).

Libertarianism does not endorse anarchy nor does it believe in "private law and government" but instead relies on the Social Contract where the government is dedicated to the protections of our inalienable Rights. It accepts that limitations on our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights is required but that these limitations must be based upon a pragmatic necessity to protect our Rights and also be to the least extent possible in providing that protection. The libertarian philosophy endorses laisse faire capitalism which is not trade without regulation but instead is trade with those regulations necessary to protect our inalienable Rights (which would include environmental regulations as no entity has a "right to pollute'). Government also has a responsibility to esnure that the violations of our inalienable Rights are mitigated either by the private sector or by government itself.

No one on this forum can point to anything I've said and justify applying the term "statist" to me as I oppose any government economic or social policy that is unrelated to the protections of our inalienable Rights as a Person. Even when I do advocate intervention to protect our inalienable Rights I always advocate that such infringements be to the least extent possible to provide for the protection.


The US Constitution is not a contract, Shiva. About fifty white men signed it, all of whom have been dead around 200 years. A contract is a voluntary agreement, as the first sentence here at Wikipedia states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
The "social contract" invented by Hobbes and Rousseau is a nonsensical apology for statism that picks up where the "divine rights of kings" left off.

As to the Golden Rule, I agree with Karen Armstrong who said "Equally important is the negative version, which states 'Don't do to others what you don't want done to you,' and even better is the Platinum Rule, "Don't do to others what they don't want done to them," but everyone gets the basic idea that it's "live and let live."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhHJ4DRZNZM&feature=youtu.be

BTW, I think that women are the sovereign owners of their own bodies. Since I don't have a right to control them, I can't delegate a right that I don't have to any politicians or people calling themselves government officials, so that they can order them about.
« Last Edit: Feb 21st, 2013 at 8:59am by Tom Palven »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: The Most Dangerous Superstition
Reply #38 - Feb 21st, 2013 at 10:45am
Print Post  
Tom Palven wrote on Feb 21st, 2013 at 7:21am:
The US Constitution is not a contract, Shiva. About fifty white men signed it, all of whom have been dead around 200 years. A contract is a voluntary agreement, as the first sentence here at Wikipedia states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
The "social contract" invented by Hobbes and Rousseau is a nonsensical apology for statism that picks up where the "divine rights of kings" left off.


Try not to confuse the Declaration of Independence which established the ideology upon which the government of the United States was founded with the US Constitution.

If we address the Wikipedia definition of a "contract" we will see that the US Constitution is a "Contract" based upon the voluntary consent of Americans.

Quote:
A contract is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between or among them. The elements of a contract are "offer" and "acceptance" by "competent persons" having legal capacity who exchange "consideration" to create "mutuality of obligation."[1]


Based upon the immigrant migration to the Americas every immigrant voluntarily agreed to terms and conditions even before the American Revolution. The earliest agreed to certain rules of government both onboard ship as well as when the communities formed. Those that followed either set up their own communities or agreed to abide by the existing rules of "government" which had been established by verbal or written contracts previously. For example, universally these immigrants established representative government by verbal or written contracts. The conditions for changing the "contract" was established generally based upon majority rule.

Like a corporation, which is created by contract, all subsequent "stockholders" agree to the conditions of the corporate contract voluntarily. Everyone that immigrated to the Americas that became the original colonies agreed to the "social" contracts of government based upon the initial unanimous consent of those that initiated the original "social" contracts. Just like a corporation where a person might inherent ownership of the corporation and they must abide by conditions of the corporate contract (charter) every American born after the initial "social" contracts establishing government in the Americas and later thenUnited States is required to abide by the conditions of our "national" contract.

If someone chooses to not abide by the "contracts" of the United States they don't have to. They can voluntarily choose to leave the territories controlled by the national contracts just like a person can return the share of stock they own in a corporation if they disagree with the provisions of a corporate charter. So long as they choose to be a "stockholder" in the United States then they must abide by the "national" charter (US and State Constitutions) that is a contract.

We can also note that like any contract it is always "current" as of it's last revision. The last time the US Constitution was amended was 1992 as I recall so with that revision the US Constitution became "current" as of that date. It isn't a 200 plus year old contract but a contract made current by it's most recent revision. If we want to update it again we can do that based upon the contract itself which, based upon the history of the United States even before we were a nation, was a contract created by the voluntary consent of 100% of those that initiated the first "social" contracts in America, all that followed by their voluntary acceptance of the pre-existing "social" contracts, or by inheritance of the pre-existing "social" contracts upon which America is founded.

As note though, anyone that wants to disinherit themself from the pre-existing "social" contracts can do so at any time. There isn't a wall keeping anyone in the United States (unless they're in prison or being detained for criminal prosecution). Don't like the United States and the US Constitution? Then leave. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing that. If not then just like being a stockholder in a corporation the individual is controlled relative to the corporation by the charter (contract) that created it.

If a corporate charter says that every stockholder has to pay $100 per year to the corporation then every stockholder has to pay $100 a year to the corporation. If they don't pay then the corporate charter can address what is to be done related to the stockhdler that refused to comply with the charter. It's no different with the US Constitution and our tax laws. We owe the money based upon contract law which is no different between a corporation and the US government.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1506
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: The Most Dangerous Superstition
Reply #39 - Feb 21st, 2013 at 3:09pm
Print Post  
Shiva, you state that "If we address the Wikipedia definition of a "contract" we will see that the US Constitution is a "Contract" based upon the voluntary consent of Americans."

That is Baseless Supposition (BS). Which Americans? Native Americans? The consent of black slaves? If I may speak for myself, I consented to be governed when I volunteered to fight in the Vietnam War, but I have withdrawn my consent. Is that permissable or must I love The State or leave it?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Most Dangerous Superstition
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy