Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › My Top Three Questions
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) My Top Three Questions (Read 1237 times)
Little Biq Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 957
Joined: Mar 17th, 2019
Re: My Top Three Questions
Reply #10 - Oct 27th, 2019 at 12:47pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 11:39am:
So if you find a cop on your property rinsing his muddy shoes off with your hose and your water, you can shoot him because rights are "absolute."


I wasn't sure how Oppo meant that part about using fatal force.  I would say, "up to fatal force" rather than go immediately to shooting a person on sight for trespassing.

Quote:


If your child is bleeding to death and I refuse to move out of the only doorway so you can take them to the hospital, you can't move me because rights are "absolute."


I never said there was a right to impede a person's movement, so I never said that right was absolute.

Quote:
We can't have roads, a military, police, recognition of property rights because we can't tax for anything because rights are "absolute."


Sure we can.  We can have as much military, police, recognition of property rights, midnight basketball, "Piss Christ," and homeless shelters as people are willing to pay for voluntarily.  Why that concept is such an anathema to a person who claims to be libertarian escapes me.


Quote:
You and opposition are in serious need of a dictionary.  Since you're both too cheap to buy one yourself, maybe you can go halvsies on one.  Or hey, you're on the Internet.  Maybe you can start Googling words for free!

Don't forget to Google what a "statist" is either


Maybe you can tell me a definition of a statist that would not include a person who believes in the absolute right of the state to enslave young people as conscripted soldiers and take the property of their parents to use to send those young people to kill and die for the state.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8727
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: My Top Three Questions
Reply #11 - Oct 27th, 2019 at 12:54pm
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 12:47pm:
I wasn't sure how Oppo meant that part about using fatal force.  I would say, "up to fatal force" rather than go immediately to shooting a person on sight for trespassing


It's Opposition, so you know he did mean that when he said "absolute."  How long have you been posting on the board?  As long as I have been.
You know what opposition means by "absolute."  He means hyperbolic extremes in every situation.  Hence the term, absolute.   So you are saying it's not absolute, which was my point


Little Biq Man wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 12:47pm:
I never said there was a right to impede a person's movement, so I never said that right was absolute


Of  course you did.  You said "all rights are absolute."  So either you're arguing that if I'm in a doorway you can shove me out of the way any time you like or you can't even in the most "absolute" situation.  That's why I don't like the word "absolute."  It's a pointless term for these discussions.  It take every discussion to hyperbole.  Which is my point


Little Biq Man wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 12:47pm:
Sure we can.  We can have as much military, police, recognition of property rights, midnight basketball, "Piss Christ," and homeless shelters as people are willing to pay for voluntarily.  Why that concept is such an anathema to a person who claims to be libertarian escapes me.


One person can block building a road.  There are lots of people out there like you who wouldn't do it because you don't want roads, you'd do it because you can.   You're perfect proof an entirely voluntary system of government wouldn't work.

There would be no possible way to have a realistic military or police force or the other things I listed.  I did not list night basketball



Little Biq Man wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 12:47pm:
Maybe you can tell me a definition of a statist that would not include a person who believes in the absolute right of the state to enslave young people as conscripted soldiers and take the property of their parents to use to send those young people to kill and die for the state.


If you want me to answer a question about statism, you need to use the actual definition.  Not your made up one that anyone who isn't an anarchist isn't a statist.  I'm not playing games like that with you
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: My Top Three Questions
Reply #12 - Oct 27th, 2019 at 1:40pm
Print Post  
yamcha wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 10:35am:
I agree with everything.  However, the first part...

It worked so well because the only people with voting rights were rich White males who owned land.
It worked so well because rich landowners were 'in' with the state legislators who appointed Senators, so there was a Senate to oppose the democratic impulses of the people's House of Representatives.

It also worked well because SCOTUS hadn't yet given it unlimited powers of legislation and taxation, so there wasn't enough money floating around DC to attract too many greedy, power hungry, unprincipled types of people into government.

It also worked well because public education was under local control and taught the principles of our federal system of government to schoolchildren, as well as slanting history to be pro-American rather than anti-American as it is today.

It's nonsense to think that rich white males will vote for good government... Are you proposing that they do that today, or that a better type of rich white males existed in the early says of the Republic? Grin Grin Grin
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: My Top Three Questions
Reply #13 - Oct 27th, 2019 at 1:41pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 10:00am:
The United States's success was driven by our very libertarian government as constructed with our very libertarian Constitution.  It wasn't perfect, but it was the closest humans have come.

It took a while, but the beginning of the end was the tyrant Lincoln who conquered Americans who no longer consented.  Consent is the libertarian basis for legitimate government.   It didn't end right away.  But it really started to unravel with the Sherman anti-trust act, the income tax and direct election of Senators.  FDR then pretty much ended it with the era of unlimited government and the end of State rights
I won't quibble. Well said. Smiley
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
yamcha
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1973
Location: Southern California
Joined: Jul 5th, 2019
Re: My Top Three Questions
Reply #14 - Oct 27th, 2019 at 8:37pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 1:40pm:
It worked so well because rich landowners were 'in' with the state legislators who appointed Senators, so there was a Senate to oppose the democratic impulses of the people's House of Representatives.

It also worked well because SCOTUS hadn't yet given it unlimited powers of legislation and taxation, so there wasn't enough money floating around DC to attract too many greedy, power hungry, unprincipled types of people into government.

It also worked well because public education was under local control and taught the principles of our federal system of government to schoolchildren, as well as slanting history to be pro-American rather than anti-American as it is today.

It's nonsense to think that rich white males will vote for good government... Are you proposing that they do that today, or that a better type of rich white males existed in the early says of the Republic? Grin Grin Grin


It doesn't have to be White males. As long as you own property, you own a piece of America, just like a share(s) in a company.  You will vote for in your best interest and the best interest of the country.  If you are a renter to a freeloader you will only vote in your own best interests as the welfare fukk, ruining our country are doing now.  But White men would be best since they are more intelligent and reasonable  You have never worked or owned so you don't understand.

Compulsory public education in the United States didn't even start until the 1920s and with support of the KKK and the school year only lasted 5 or 6 weeks.

Do you do anything besides nothing?  Oppos respectfully presented some important questions he would like to have answered by people who he thinks can give the best answers.  Can you focus on that instead of derailing shit?  I want him to see his questions answered.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Biq Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 957
Joined: Mar 17th, 2019
Re: My Top Three Questions
Reply #15 - Oct 27th, 2019 at 9:32pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 12:54pm:
It's Opposition, so you know he did mean that when he said "absolute."  How long have you been posting on the board?  As long as I have been.
You know what opposition means by "absolute."  He means hyperbolic extremes in every situation.  Hence the term, absolute.   So you are saying it's not absolute, which was my point


If it is hyperbolic, then he did not mean it literally.  When one uses hyperbole, one is not being literal.  Unless you are literally making up a definition of that word.

I did not say that it is not absolute.  One does not need to be willing to shoot a police officer in its defense for a right to be absolute.  There are other remedies, such as calling for his supervisor to come and remove him that preserve my absolute right to property. 

What fails to defend my absolute right to own property if a government actually takes my property under conditions that it sets.

Quote:
Of  course you did.  You said "all rights are absolute."  So either you're arguing that if I'm in a doorway you can shove me out of the way any time you like or you can't even in the most "absolute" situation.  That's why I don't like the word "absolute."  It's a pointless term for these discussions.  It take every discussion to hyperbole.  Which is my point.


It is your example that is so extreme that it should only be used as hyperbole, which I can only guess is what you mean by the word "hyperbole."  There is no absolute right to stand in a certain doorway, and I never said their was, you lying sack of shit.

Hey!  I just suggested a new screen name for you.  Feel free to use it, I claim no copyright.
 

Quote:




One person can block building a road.  There are lots of people out there like you who wouldn't do it because you don't want roads, you'd do it because you can.   You're perfect proof an entirely voluntary system of government wouldn't work.


If you an argue that one pathetic little "property owner" has no business blocking a road the government deems beneficial to all by refusing to hand over his so-called property, then how can you argue that one person can block a mall that the government deems beneficial to all by the same stubborn insistence that private property is a real thing?

Or maybe you do not make that argument?
Quote:
There would be no possible way to have a realistic military or police force or the other things I listed.  I did not list night basketball


But it is all the same thing.  Government ignoring property rights (and in the case of conscription, all conceivable rights), in order to serve its own ends under a claim of "public good."  You think we need more aircraft carriers to fight ISIS with on the side of Turkey or whoever's side we are on this decade.  Someone else thinks her neighborhood children need a supervised recreation area so they are not preyed upon by gangs. 

By what articulable principle do you justify theft for one but not the other?

"Articulable" means you can say it in words.  Say it, please.

Quote:
If you want me to answer a question about statism, you need to use the actual definition.  Not your made up one that anyone who isn't an anarchist isn't a statist.  I'm not playing games like that with you


Ok, what is your definition of statism that does not include the state being able take away every single right that an individual has as it does under conscription?

I eagerly await your answer, LyingSack.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8727
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: My Top Three Questions
Reply #16 - Oct 27th, 2019 at 9:39pm
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 9:32pm:
If it is hyperbolic, then he did not mean it literally.  When one uses hyperbole, one is not being literal.  Unless you are literally making up a definition of that word.

I did not say that it is not absolute.  One does not need to be willing to shoot a police officer in its defense for a right to be absolute.  There are other remedies, such as calling for his supervisor to come and remove him that preserve my absolute right to property. 

What fails to defend my absolute right to own property if a government actually takes my property under conditions that it sets.


It is your example that is so extreme that it should only be used as hyperbole, which I can only guess is what you mean by the word "hyperbole."  There is no absolute right to stand in a certain doorway, and I never said their was, you lying sack of shit.

Hey!  I just suggested a new screen name for you.  Feel free to use it, I claim no copyright.
 


If you an argue that one pathetic little "property owner" has no business blocking a road the government deems beneficial to all by refusing to hand over his so-called property, then how can you argue that one person can block a mall that the government deems beneficial to all by the same stubborn insistence that private property is a real thing?

Or maybe you do not make that argument?

But it is all the same thing.  Government ignoring property rights (and in the case of conscription, all conceivable rights), in order to serve its own ends under a claim of "public good."  You think we need more aircraft carriers to fight ISIS with on the side of Turkey or whoever's side we are on this decade.  Someone else thinks her neighborhood children need a supervised recreation area so they are not preyed upon by gangs. 

By what articulable principle do you justify theft for one but not the other?

"Articulable" means you can say it in words.  Say it, please.


Ok, what is your definition of statism that does not include the state being able take away every single right that an individual has as it does under conscription?

I eagerly await your answer, LyingSack.


Spew your homophobic, racist shit somewhere else, grand wizard.  Oh, and you're a ...


  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
yamcha
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1973
Location: Southern California
Joined: Jul 5th, 2019
Re: My Top Three Questions
Reply #17 - Oct 27th, 2019 at 10:36pm
Print Post  
Let's just try to answer Oppo's questions the best we can.  He has been asking the same questions for a long time now but has detailed them all in one thread.

Hopefully not, but if none of the answers here are sufficient to him then he will at least know that the answers are not here and will have to either seek them elsewhere, figure them out himself or let them go as any further questioning can only be a deliberate annoyance, forum harassment or mental illness.

I really hope he can put things to rest this time.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8727
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: My Top Three Questions
Reply #18 - Oct 28th, 2019 at 7:12am
Print Post  
yamcha wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 10:36pm:
Let's just try to answer Oppo's questions the best we can.  He has been asking the same questions for a long time now but has detailed them all in one thread.

Hopefully not, but if none of the answers here are sufficient to him then he will at least know that the answers are not here and will have to either seek them elsewhere, figure them out himself or let them go as any further questioning can only be a deliberate annoyance, forum harassment or mental illness.

I really hope he can put things to rest this time.


Just FYI, I'm not exaggerating when I say that Opposition means by "absolute" thinks like if a cop is on your yard using your hose and your water, he can shoot the cop.  As you said this is a long running discussion.  Every time Opposition comes up with an absurdly hyperbolic example and says OK, so that's what it means.

When I say no that's absurdly hyperbolic, he says he's "testing the limits."

I say OK, so the limit is not hyperbolically extreme.  So if what you want is the limit then bring it back some.

He then goes on to keep arguing the hyperbolic extreme.

You are right that this is long running
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
yamcha
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1973
Location: Southern California
Joined: Jul 5th, 2019
Re: My Top Three Questions
Reply #19 - Oct 28th, 2019 at 7:21am
Print Post  
Ok, well I am not sure what I would do if I saw strangers on my property if I lived in a secluded area.  I might shoot them but certainly not if it was a cop and I actually believed it was a cop.

But yes you key point her and your final answer to the Opposition is: NO, RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE.

So we have gotten this out of the way and whether he likes it or not, that is your answer.

So we can check one off the list for kaz
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › My Top Three Questions
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy