Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism (Read 892 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7190
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #30 - Jun 10th, 2018 at 11:52pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 10:26pm:
Except the right of self-defense.   That right is common to all animals. 


This would imply that animals are not property; that the farmer does not have a right to kill his own chicken.

The chicken who can defend against this must have self-ownership, and that would imply all the other rights.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.

Not taking Jeff seriously until he admits this is animal abuse (which he says should be illegal): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-IT7_CaE4
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 32423
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #31 - Jun 11th, 2018 at 7:18am
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 5:34pm:
Only the blind and ignorant reject the mountains of scientific (anthroplological/physical/ fossil/DNA) evidence which supports evolution.

I didn't say there isn't plenty of evidence supporting the obvious fact that living organisms can and do evolve.

The question that lacks enough evidence to answer is where/what/when did humans originate.

A few scattered hominid fossils have been found, but the record is thin and discontinuous.

You can say that animals with hominid characteristics have been found that are very old, and some not so old, and some in between.

There are theories about how they might/must have been ancestors and descendants of each other and that we might/must be descended from them, but they remain theories, not explanations, because there is simply not enough evidence to say of any early hominid "This was our earliest ancestor, and it evolved from Something...", what it might have evolved from being completely unknown.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 32423
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #32 - Jun 11th, 2018 at 7:22am
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 10:26pm:
Except the right of self-defense.   That right is common to all animals. 
I disagree. Ask any farmer or rancher. A cow that decides to defend itself is dangerous and gets destroyed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ahhell
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2078
Joined: Sep 21st, 2016
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #33 - Jun 11th, 2018 at 8:51am
Print Post  
I'm late to the game on this but.

1. Racial disparity in IQ, could be explained by evolution or it could be explained by culture.  The IQ of pretty much every group studied has been increasing since IQ tests were created.  This is masked because IQs are normalized around the current average.  There's a line in Thomas Sowell's Migration and Cultures regarding this.  Irish Americans have under gone one of the most rabid social transformations in history, their average IQ is almost equal the US average now.  There ancestors were mostly starving dirt farmers and now their pretty much indistinguishable from the rest of white America.

2.  My might be evolved to be best adapted to a statist society.  So what?  Also, we aren't.

3. There aren't universally true moral principles but we should pretend there are.  Pretty much anything following from "Assault and theft are bad" Murder, really bad assault for instance.


4.  Nitpick, the aquatic ape theory alluded to on page 1, generally rejected by anthropologists.  It is only promoted by a feminist journalist because it suited her dogma.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7149
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #34 - Jun 11th, 2018 at 11:26am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 7:22am:
I disagree. Ask any farmer or rancher. A cow that decides to defend itself is dangerous and gets destroyed.

I stated that all animals have the right of self-defense - not the means.  There's a difference between a right to do something and the means to do something.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7149
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #35 - Jun 11th, 2018 at 11:35am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 10th, 2018 at 11:52pm:
This would imply that animals are not property; that the farmer does not have a right to kill his own chicken.

The chicken who can defend against this must have self-ownership, and that would imply all the other rights.

As usual, you're over-thinking this, Oppo.   

All animals will always have a right to defend themselves.  This right cannot be revoked or infringed.

It's not dependent on anything - it is a natural right. 

Of course, you can sedate the bull, cut his horns off and take away his means of self-defense, but you never took away his right of self-defense.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7190
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #36 - Jun 11th, 2018 at 10:40pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 11:35am:
As usual, you're over-thinking this, Oppo.   

All animals will always have a right to defend themselves.  This right cannot be revoked or infringed.

It's not dependent on anything - it is a natural right. 

Of course, you can sedate the bull, cut his horns off and take away his means of self-defense, but you never took away his right of self-defense.


You're implying that the farmer does not have the right to kill his chicken. I'm only talking about rights here, not what each party has the physical ability to do. Of course the farmer can kill the chicken. I'm addressing whether or not rights prevent him.

Only one can be true:

1. The chicken has a right to defend the body of the chicken, because that body belongs to himself - the chicken.

2. The body of the chicken is the farmer's property and the chicken may not intercede between the farmer and his property.

Only the owner of something (or someone acting on the owner's behalf) may legitimately defend that thing from others.

Do you see how who owns the chicken comes into play, necessarily, when we talk about rights to defend the chicken?

Who does the chicken have a right to defend, according to Skychief?

The chicken.

Himself. The self of the chicken.

That implies self-ownership.

That in turn contradicts the idea that the farmer can own the chicken.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.

Not taking Jeff seriously until he admits this is animal abuse (which he says should be illegal): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-IT7_CaE4
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7149
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #37 - Jun 11th, 2018 at 11:23pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 10:40pm:
You're implying that the farmer does not have the right to kill his chicken. I'm only talking about rights here, not what each party has the physical ability to do. Of course the farmer can kill the chicken. I'm addressing whether or not rights prevent him.

Only one can be true:

1. The chicken has a right to defend the body of the chicken, because that body belongs to himself - the chicken.

2. The body of the chicken is the farmer's property and the chicken may not intercede between the farmer and his property.

Only the owner of something (or someone acting on the owner's behalf) may legitimately defend that thing from others.

Do you see how who owns the chicken comes into play, necessarily, when we talk about rights to defend the chicken?

Who does the chicken have a right to defend, according to Skychief?

The chicken.

Himself. The self of the chicken.

That implies self-ownership.

The chicken can call in reinforcements to deploy nuclear weapons.    Is this likely to happen?  Of course not.  But it's the chicken's right to do it.

No matter how you much you cluck and squawk, that remains true. 

The chicken doesn't require your (or anyone's) blessing.  If it chooses to defend itself, IT WILL.  Because it has the absolute right to.

Your objections to this right are meaningless to the chicken.

So Be nice to chickens. - your life might depend on it.   Cool
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7190
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #38 - Jun 11th, 2018 at 11:47pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 11:23pm:
The chicken can call in reinforcements to deploy nuclear weapons.    Is this likely to happen?  Of course not.  But it's the chicken's right to do it.


Not if the farmer actually owns the chicken.

SkyChief wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 11:23pm:
Your objections to this right are meaningless to the chicken.


You're the one who said this was about rights - what one should do - not what one can do.

The chicken only has the right to defend himself if he owns himself.

SkyChief wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 11:23pm:
So Be nice to chickens. - your life might depend on it.   Cool


I always have. They're very intelligent and love hugs. Pay special attention to the ones at 1:11 who have trained a human to hug on command.



They don't have rights, though. Despite being more intelligent that Jeff and Don put together, Rothbard says they don't have rights because people are special.

For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we "feel" that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.

Not taking Jeff seriously until he admits this is animal abuse (which he says should be illegal): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-IT7_CaE4
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7149
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Reply #39 - Jun 12th, 2018 at 12:22am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 11:47pm:
You're the one who said this was about rights - what one should do - not what one can do.

The chicken only has the right to defend himself if he owns himself.

The chicken has the right to defend himself, regardless of what his captors might think. Only the chicken's means of self-defense are in question.

A clever person can take away the chicken's means of self-defense.

The smartest person in the world cannot take away the chicken's right of self-defense.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Darwinian Evolution and Libertarianism v. Statism
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy