The fact that other governments do not want you does not give you the right to dictate terms to our government.
Just because I do not like what any establishment is offering, does not give me the right to dictate terms to the establishment I am currently in. What is on offer here is what is on offer, and the fact that you can not buy your diamond encrusted flying pony in any other establishment does not mean that this establishment is infringing on your rights by not offering you one at the price you want to pay.
You see, life does not cater to you, and your rules are your own. They do not automatically apply to others. As the song goes, you can't always get what you want. So what?
Demanding that society give you the exact deal that you like, for the price you feel like paying, is like demanding a diamond encrusted pony. Good luck with that.
I'm not even sure how you arrived at that conclusion, based on what I wrote I think anyone would conclude the exact opposite. We took our business elsewhere, thank you King, you're not needed anymore. Not that we ever had a valid contract with nobility in the first place.
I support any individual or group's fundamental right to leave any union. For instance, the civil war was not justified on the grounds of preserving the union. It was only justifiable on the grounds of ending slavery. I would love it if the red state leaches who take more in federal subsidies than they pay in taxes left the union and formed their own country. God DAMN! would I love watching them fail miserably and beg to be readmitted.
It sounds like you've been arguing with conservatives. They defend the status quo. Liberals like to change things for the better. But we don't agree with libertarians about what makes things better. Liberals also agree that we should start from basic liberty and only abridge that to explore greater social benefits.
You sound more like a social anarchist than a libertarian. Are you American? The American Libertarian party is the anarcho-capitalist party. In Europe, Libertarian just means 'anarchist' in general. I have no problem with European libertarians, in fact, I am an anarcho-syndicalist who believes in democratic control of the means of production.
Just because you don't like the deals that are available does not give you the right to dictate terms. For example "if it were easier to buy a Mazeratti, then Yugos wouldn't matter so much."
A small minority of people seem to believe as you do that Obama has trampled the constitution. I don't, but I just have ask, where were you during the Bush years?
Seriously, though, I agree with your point: building people up is better than tearing people down. Even people who deserve to be torn down. It may be justice, but it isn't efficient.
What makes you think I was trolling? Please, try to find something in the above post which is inflammatory, and not something I actually believe.
So, we agree that the absolute rights of the property owner must be abridged when they infringe on another's rights. Good. Nobody gets to just say 'you can't come on my land no matter what!' and society always has an overriding interest in it's member's property.
My town example was pretty simple. They do own the town land. But not the land five feet away where the garbage distillery and pig farm will be located. A true libertarian would claim the town has no rights to tell the pig farmer what to do. I say, hogwash. They can form an agreement which says, if you want to build in our town, you follow our rules. Like you have to build buildings that do not destroy the positive externalities we have created, such as the quaint look and unspoiled views. These extranlities are a source of income from the town, and the would-be pig farmer is destroying them.
I am trying to show that 'harm' is a nebulous concept, and I think I have shown that it is more than just getting punched in the face. Even without guns, weapons, or violence, someone can harm you substantially. Economic coercion is real, it is initiation of force against someone else, and it harms people. So, we have a right to say, 'hey, you are harming me., Stop.' The question is, what do you consider harm? For most libertarians, harm is only something that happens to them or those they care about. If it happens to someone else, why, that person is just a whiner who wants a free ride from society, and their idea of 'harm' should not be respected.
To clarify, I'm not saying that the inability to opt out of society is fair. I'm saying that getting only what you are willing to pay for is fair. Living in society comes with a cost. You do not get to dictate what the cost is. Other people get to tell you what to do, that's part of the cost. If you don't like it, you are free to shop around for something you like better. But, if you can not find something you like better, you do not get to simply take what you like without paying for it.
What justifies the massive land grabs that individuals make, claiming ownership and domain of large swathes of land, even if they were in use by others previously? Because they said so?
Your simplistic libertarian views demonstrate that you have only a glib, self serving, and superficial understanding of what freedom means. Freedom is a contract between individuals where both people give up something they value less in order to gain something they value more. As such, freedom is something that is defined by society, not individuals. Individuals, by themselves, have only power. Freedom is a moot concept outside of society. Inside society, it is always a trade off, and it means something far more than "I get to do whatever I want and you can't tell me what to do."
"if we don't like them niggers, kikes, spics, 'n queers, and if there are more of us them those gosh-darned vermin, then by golly we can treat 'em however we want, GOD BLESS AMERICA (YEE-HAW!)
Hardly. We have a constitution that says we can not do that. If we didn't, I would have to fight to change that, using the agreements we have in place on how to change things, or leave. Please use better arguments, I bore easily.
Well, there are plenty of places you can go. You can even build your own island. But that is besides the point. Just because you can not find the deal you are looking for anywhere else, does not mean you can dictate to others that they must give you the deal you want. Your 'where else can I go' argument is akin to arguing that I should be able to walk into a store and demand they sell me what I want, at the price I want, because no one else is willing to.
So, perhaps you can't reasonably opt out of society. You can't opt out of the capitalist system, either. You can't opt out of paying for the things you get. This is a fact of life, and fair.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that other governments do not want you does not give you the right to dictate terms to our government.
Just because I do not like what any establishment is offering, does not give me the right to dictate terms to the establishment I am currently in. What is on offer here is what is on offer, and the fact that you can not buy your diamond encrusted flying pony in any other establishment does not mean that this establishment is infringing on your rights by not offering you one at the price you want to pay.
You see, life does not cater to you, and your rules are your own. They do not automatically apply to others. As the song goes, you can't always get what you want. So what?
Demanding that society give you the exact deal that you like, for the price you feel like paying, is like demanding a diamond encrusted pony. Good luck with that.
It's the sound a slam dunk makes.
I'm not even sure how you arrived at that conclusion, based on what I wrote I think anyone would conclude the exact opposite. We took our business elsewhere, thank you King, you're not needed anymore. Not that we ever had a valid contract with nobility in the first place.
It's a mangled Half Baked quote.
How so? We have a constitution for a reason, I do not support a tyranny of the majority when it infringes basic rights.
I support any individual or group's fundamental right to leave any union. For instance, the civil war was not justified on the grounds of preserving the union. It was only justifiable on the grounds of ending slavery. I would love it if the red state leaches who take more in federal subsidies than they pay in taxes left the union and formed their own country. God DAMN! would I love watching them fail miserably and beg to be readmitted.
It sounds like you've been arguing with conservatives. They defend the status quo. Liberals like to change things for the better. But we don't agree with libertarians about what makes things better. Liberals also agree that we should start from basic liberty and only abridge that to explore greater social benefits.
You sound more like a social anarchist than a libertarian. Are you American? The American Libertarian party is the anarcho-capitalist party. In Europe, Libertarian just means 'anarchist' in general. I have no problem with European libertarians, in fact, I am an anarcho-syndicalist who believes in democratic control of the means of production.
Just because you don't like the deals that are available does not give you the right to dictate terms. For example "if it were easier to buy a Mazeratti, then Yugos wouldn't matter so much."
Agreed. Express your opinions all you like. I, and the rest of the majority, will be here to dispute them.
Whiners call anything they don't like tyranny. Where were you during Bush?
No, I don't demand that someone provide me with anything. I just demand an equitable distribution of rewards for the work that is done.
A small minority of people seem to believe as you do that Obama has trampled the constitution. I don't, but I just have ask, where were you during the Bush years?
If they ever do that, let me know, okay?
Yeah, but have you ever lived life... on weed?
Seriously, though, I agree with your point: building people up is better than tearing people down. Even people who deserve to be torn down. It may be justice, but it isn't efficient.
What makes you think I was trolling? Please, try to find something in the above post which is inflammatory, and not something I actually believe.
So, we agree that the absolute rights of the property owner must be abridged when they infringe on another's rights. Good. Nobody gets to just say 'you can't come on my land no matter what!' and society always has an overriding interest in it's member's property.
My town example was pretty simple. They do own the town land. But not the land five feet away where the garbage distillery and pig farm will be located. A true libertarian would claim the town has no rights to tell the pig farmer what to do. I say, hogwash. They can form an agreement which says, if you want to build in our town, you follow our rules. Like you have to build buildings that do not destroy the positive externalities we have created, such as the quaint look and unspoiled views. These extranlities are a source of income from the town, and the would-be pig farmer is destroying them.
I am trying to show that 'harm' is a nebulous concept, and I think I have shown that it is more than just getting punched in the face. Even without guns, weapons, or violence, someone can harm you substantially. Economic coercion is real, it is initiation of force against someone else, and it harms people. So, we have a right to say, 'hey, you are harming me., Stop.' The question is, what do you consider harm? For most libertarians, harm is only something that happens to them or those they care about. If it happens to someone else, why, that person is just a whiner who wants a free ride from society, and their idea of 'harm' should not be respected.
To clarify, I'm not saying that the inability to opt out of society is fair. I'm saying that getting only what you are willing to pay for is fair. Living in society comes with a cost. You do not get to dictate what the cost is. Other people get to tell you what to do, that's part of the cost. If you don't like it, you are free to shop around for something you like better. But, if you can not find something you like better, you do not get to simply take what you like without paying for it.
I've responded to this question twice in this thread already, so just keep reading, m'kay?
Can't we kill a few sociopathic oppressors along the way? Please? It'll be fun!
Thankfully, yes. That is the case. Unless we get two thirds majority and a bunch of states to make it a Constitutional Ammendment.
I've never seen a more self serving and superficial definition of 'freedom.'
What justifies the massive land grabs that individuals make, claiming ownership and domain of large swathes of land, even if they were in use by others previously? Because they said so?
Your simplistic libertarian views demonstrate that you have only a glib, self serving, and superficial understanding of what freedom means. Freedom is a contract between individuals where both people give up something they value less in order to gain something they value more. As such, freedom is something that is defined by society, not individuals. Individuals, by themselves, have only power. Freedom is a moot concept outside of society. Inside society, it is always a trade off, and it means something far more than "I get to do whatever I want and you can't tell me what to do."
To summarize spun's viewpoint,
"if we don't like them niggers, kikes, spics, 'n queers, and if there are more of us them those gosh-darned vermin, then by golly we can treat 'em however we want, GOD BLESS AMERICA (YEE-HAW!)
Hardly. We have a constitution that says we can not do that. If we didn't, I would have to fight to change that, using the agreements we have in place on how to change things, or leave. Please use better arguments, I bore easily.
Well, there are plenty of places you can go. You can even build your own island. But that is besides the point. Just because you can not find the deal you are looking for anywhere else, does not mean you can dictate to others that they must give you the deal you want. Your 'where else can I go' argument is akin to arguing that I should be able to walk into a store and demand they sell me what I want, at the price I want, because no one else is willing to.
So, perhaps you can't reasonably opt out of society. You can't opt out of the capitalist system, either. You can't opt out of paying for the things you get. This is a fact of life, and fair.