Libertarianism in One Sentence

Shetland pony rider wrote:
"One (libertarian elected to the state legislature) in alaska and one in new hampshire (a state that libertarians had plans to invade and take over). In how many years? Hardly a feat worth crowing about."

I replied:
Oh, I'm not "crowing" about anything. I posted that only as proof that your earlier statement on page 3 of this thread that "A political group that can't get elected to any office higher than city council and dog catcher..." WAS A LIE.


You're a clear liar, Shetland pony rider. I guess you want to tell us that now depends on what the definition of "is" is... ROTFL. Stop trying to pull a Clinton and admit you're a liar.

BUSTED!
 
Werbung:
Shetland pony rider wrote:
"If you want to be part of a society, then you, by default, are obligated to pay the dues the society has associated with membership in the society. There is no free lunch."

To which I replied:
"There is no society - that's the reificiation fallacy.

Now lie to everyone again and tell them you haven't made any fallacious arguments."

So your earlier claim that you haven't made any fallacious arguments is once again PROVEN TO BE A LIE.
 
Shetland pony rider wrote:
"To begin with, if you believe bush is a conservative then you know nothing of conservative principles and if you believe that any of these things represent them, you lack basic knowledge of conservative philosophy."

To which I replied:

"I don't believe Bush is a conservative, but BUSH SAYS HE IS A CONSERVATIVE. So is he stupid or a liar?

Why would a conservative such as yourself vote for Bush if he's not a conservative and you know he's not? Are you saying you'll compromise your principles?"

WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, SHETLAND PONY RIDER?
 
Shetland pony rider wrote:
"I have control of my actions and may make choices within certain boundries."

To which I replied:

Who determines the boundaries? Libertarians say people have a right to control all of their actions as long as those actions are peaceful, honest and voluntary. The only time government steps in is if people initiate violence, fraud or coercion to prevent other people from living their lives in peaceful, honest, and/or voluntary manner.

Under what authority do you claim the right to limit the peaceful, honest, and or voluntary actions of other human beings as long as they're not interfering with your rights? By majority vote?

Answer my questions you gutless coward and stop running.

You're pwned, Shetland pony rider
http://******************/download.php?id=1023
 
Shetland pony rider wrote:

"We the people decide what one may and may not do if one wants to be a member of society. To say that you must pay taxes to support the society doesn't make you a slave, it is only a statement of what you must accept if you want to be a member of this society. You are perfectly free to go somewhere else if this society doesn't suit you. And we as a society give the lawmakers the right. Lawmakers are elected by the citizens. Don't you know how our government works?"

To which I replied:

I think I'm beginning to understand. Let me see if I have this right... So if the majority elected lawmakers and they made a law that each citizen had to kill one child under the age of 5 once per year and that no one could leave the country to avoid this obligation, you're saying you would kill a child under the age of 5 once per year and comply with the wishes of the "we the people"?

Now answer my questions and quit running you gutless coward.

You're pwned!!!
http://******************/download.php?id=1023
 
Are you arguing that you don't support a single tenet of conservative philosophy? How about the liberal philosophy? Are you saying that you don't support a single tenet? Do you know the tenets of either? For that matter, do you know the tenets of libertarian philosophy?

Snip the rest of your verbal diarrhea... Christ, you'll try to skew and distort anything that's said, won't you? Just like the good little fraud that you are...

No, that is not my argument, you idiotic dimwit. That comment was made merely as a side note against all your constant defamatory insults against libertarians since this thread started.


Do you see what has happened here? You have completely lost the point. This is the nature of debate.

LOL.:D No once again you have distorted, obfuscated and resorted to Straw men... You're arguing a side comment made as a joke - not part of the argument, loser. Now the joke's on you. :D You're the one running from my questions.


This doesn't constitute proof of anything. Your rebuttal was little more than name calling and insult hurling. My answer to your first point in this post is what a rebuttal looks like.

Yes, it does dimwit. It proves majority opinion does not equal truth or validity. You were arguing that since the majority of people don't support libertarians, that our philosophy must be flawed based on that reason. Again, please stop lying. Please stop trying to defraud people on this forum with your deception and truth-twisting.


OK. Here is where I rightly call you a liar, and will use cut and paste to prove it.

"No, you lying fraud. "

"What a complete and total fraud you are."

"You might need to seek out a good therapist... "

"You are one pathetic little lying dweeb."

"When I tell you to go pick up a dictionary and read it, you abject moron, you better listen to me.

"You are one seriously stupid fool, aren't you?"[/COLOR]

I could continue, but it is really unnecessary.

You made a claim that there has been no name calling and here are your very own words that make a liar of you.

Oh there has been no name calling. Now, if I would have said these things to members vyo476 or USMC the Almighty or Rokerijdude, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NAME CALLING. But for you, those terms are ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS BASED ON THE LIES AND UTTER NONSENSE YOU HAVE POSTED IN THIS THREAD. I have proven you are a liar a fraud and a moron.

What has also been proven is that you started with the arrogant know-it-all attitude and the Ad Hominem attacks in this thread. And your arrogance has been shown to be a complete and total cover for your lack of intelligence and lack of integrity.


I didn't ignore your definitions. I pointed out that there is literal slavery in which one is actually the property of another and that there is figurative slavery which is in essence a characature of slavery and has its roots in sarcasm. I asked you if when you suggested that we are slaves of the government if you were saying that we were literal slaves in which case, it is easily proved that we are not or whether your argument was that we are figurative slaves in which case your argument was based in sarcasm and thus not worthy of serious consideration.

You dodged the question and never answered.

Yes, you did ignore my definitions, as evidenced by your above statement touting the same "argument" as before. I've dodged nothing. I presented these facts in support of my argument to which you had no reply:

"the U.S. is the only country in the world that taxes it's citizens if they leave and go to other countries - and it also forbids anyone from renouncing their citizenship for the purposes of avoiding taxation."

I also stated partial de facto slavery was possible, to which you had no valid response.

I further stated:

"It's based on the fact that over 50% of the vast majority's income is taken from them at gunpoint if necessary and we basically have to ask the government's permission to do all manner of peaceful and/or honest behavior. And in addition, we continue to lose freedoms in this country at a slow but steady pace."

....to which you had no valid response.


So are you arguing that you don't actually believe that we "own" ourselves? Was that a figurative argument as well?

Do you have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever??? Did you even graduate from high school??? Read it again:

"the INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE/PEONAGE laws corrected (this). So that one person may not be taken as the property of another. If you want to define yourself as property, then you are only property IN RELATION TO YOUR SELF-OWNERSHIP as far as the libertarian philosophy is concerned."

Here you seem to be arguing for literal ownership of the self and literal ownership implies property since anything that we own is rightly defined as property.

You seem to be either a complete and total nitwit or a complete and total fraud. Which is it?

Either I am property or I am not. If I own myself, and may rightly sell my property to someone then I may sell myself into literal slavery.

Again, why do you keep arguing straw men??? Look back at the very first post on this thread. The basic tenet the author puts forward is OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR PROPERTY. We are all self-owners, and ONLY self-owners. We can not sell ourselves to other people precisely because OTHER PEOPLE CANNOT BE OUR PROPERTY.

By the same token, if a thing that is legal property is put up for sale, anyone who has the resources to buy it, may do so. If I literally own myself, then I am legal property. Again, if you are talking figuratively, the whole argument is moot. Note however, that under the libertarian philosophy, literal ownership is implied.

As I said, and which you ignored:

One possible base defintion of Libertarianism is that OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR PROPERTY. So what does that mean? IT MEANS NO HUMAN CAN OWN ANOTHER HUMAN. You're the one using distortion and obfuscation to try and muddy the waters, but my point remains: A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY BE CLASSIFIED AS PROPERTY SOLELY IN RELATION TO SELF-OWNERSHIP AND ONLY IN REGARDS TO SELF-OWNERSHIP.



There is a difference between servitude and slavery.

What do you claim is the difference between INVOLUNTARY servitude and slavery? Because both should be illegal, and would be under a libertarian system.

And we are not talking about our present legal system, we are talking about what the legal system would look like under libertarian rule.

Again, this does not address my rebuttal:

As I said, the voluntary servitude that you were fearmongering about is completely legal in our present system, and since it isn't happening now, that means your argument is dead. Since, in a libertarian system, slavery and involuntary servitude will also continue to be illegal.

Explain PRECISELY and VIA THE LEGAL SYSTEM (BY WHICH SPECIFIC LAWS) how people will be owned by others under a libertarian system since slavery and involuntary servitude will be illegal.
 
Shetland pony rider said:
"In order to be a libertarian, you have to believe in a universal spirit of good will among human beings. As such, like thinking individuals would form private syndicates to protect their rights and security against others. If a universal spirit of good will existed among human beings, this would be a fine and dandy solution to individual security. The fact is, however, that no such universal spirit of good will exists,"

I replied:
If people are evil, then a "government" consisting of people will ipso facto also be evil.

And Shetland pony rider rode out of town as fast as he could...

Still with the name calling in lieu of actual discussion? Do you deny that libertarians support the idea of private security, answerable to the private individuals who hire them as opposed to public police who are answerable to all citizens?
 
You're a clear liar, Shetland pony rider. I guess you want to tell us that now depends on what the definition of "is" is... ROTFL. Stop trying to pull a Clinton and admit you're a liar.

BUSTED!

Did I not correct my statement and freely admit that two libertarians have been elected to state office? Where is the lie in that?
 
Shetland pony rider wrote:
"If you want to be part of a society, then you, by default, are obligated to pay the dues the society has associated with membership in the society. There is no free lunch."

To which I replied:
"There is no society - that's the reificiation fallacy.

Are you arguing that there exists no society in the US, or anywhere else for that matter?

Once again, you apparently don't understand what constitutes the falacy you claim. If I were arguing a universal set of morals within a society, the argument for the set of morals would constitute a reification fallacy as morals are not actual things. A group of people, however who establish understandings among themselves and live in a way that allows them all to more or less exist together without decending into chaos is an actual thing.

Society is defined as an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. Society in fact, exists.
 
Shetland pony rider wrote:
To which I replied:I think I'm beginning to understand. Let me see if I have this right... So if the majority elected lawmakers and they made a law that each citizen had to kill one child under the age of 5 once per year and that no one could leave the country to avoid this obligation, you're saying you would kill a child under the age of 5 once per year and comply with the wishes of the "we the people"?

Now answer my questions and quit running you gutless coward.

There is no answer. You unilatarally changed the parameters of the situation to suit your mindset. When I said that society may require that individuals pay taxes, I clearly stated that any individual has the choice to leave should he or she not want to pay those taxes. In your senario, you remove the ability to leave if one doesn't agree with the rest and make it into a situtation in which one doesn't have a choice. The situation you describe is not analogous to the one I described.

Are you completely unable to speak without calling names? Once more, it is neither cute, nor a demonstration of your intelligence.
 
No, that is not my argument, you idiotic dimwit. That comment was made merely as a side note against all your constant defamatory insults against libertarians since this thread started. [/quote}

More name calling. Once again, it is not a suitable substitute for actual debate. You seemed to be making the claim that one couldn't hold to certain tenets of a philosphy without embracing them all. That was clearly not true.


Yes, it does dimwit. It proves majority opinion does not equal truth or validity. You were arguing that since the majority of people don't support libertarians, that our philosophy must be flawed based on that reason. Again, please stop lying. Please stop trying to defraud people on this forum with your deception and truth-twisting.

No, I was arguing that the libertarian philosophy is flawed whether the majority agree or not and I prove the flaw. The fact that the majority of people don't support it is simply evidence that the majority of people don't support it. My bet is that most couldn't even describe the philosophical paradox at the heart of libertarianism. For all I know, the majority of americans don't like libertarianism because of their exposure to name calling, insult hurling folks like yourself.

Oh there has been no name calling. Now, if I would have said these things to members vyo476 or USMC the Almighty or Rokerijdude, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NAME CALLING. But for you, those terms are ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS BASED ON THE LIES AND UTTER NONSENSE YOU HAVE POSTED IN THIS THREAD. I have proven you are a liar a fraud and a moron.

I have pointed out that you are a liar. Case closed. Unfortunately, you can not spin or cute your way out of this one. You have indeed decended to name calling and insult hurling in lieu of actual argument.

What has also been proven is that you started with the arrogant know-it-all attitude and the Ad Hominem attacks in this thread. And your arrogance has been shown to be a complete and total cover for your lack of intelligence and lack of integrity.

You keep saying it but have yet to prove it.

Yes, you did ignore my definitions, as evidenced by your above statement touting the same "argument" as before. I've dodged nothing. I presented these facts in support of my argument to which you had no reply:

"the U.S. is the only country in the world that taxes it's citizens if they leave and go to other countries - and it also forbids anyone from renouncing their citizenship for the purposes of avoiding taxation."

And this has exactly what to do with literal or figurative slavery?

I also stated partial de facto slavery was possible, to which you had no valid response.

I pointed out that de facto means in fact. In fact, I am not a slave as no one owns me. Then you brought in the term de jure which means by right or according to the law. Well, by right or the law, I am not owned by another individual or the state.

If de facto slavery is possible, then you are saying that in fact, one can be a slave. In fact, there are no legal slaves in this country.

"It's based on the fact that over 50% of the vast majority's income is taken from them at gunpoint if necessary and we basically have to ask the government's permission to do all manner of peaceful and/or honest behavior. And in addition, we continue to lose freedoms in this country at a slow but steady pace."

I didn't respond because it is not a valid point. I don't pay my taxes at gunpoint any more than I refrain from killing my neighbors at gunpoint. The law is the law and breaking the laws invites punishment. Are you arguing that if libertarians were in charge, there would be no enforcement of the laws since expecting for one to obey the law amounts to (by your definition) being forced at gunpoint.

"the INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE/PEONAGE laws corrected (this). So that one person may not be taken as the property of another. If you want to define yourself as property, then you are only property IN RELATION TO YOUR SELF-OWNERSHIP as far as the libertarian philosophy is concerned."

So now are you arguing that you do not own yourself, because anything that may be owned may be considered property. This is at the heart of the paradox within libertarian philosophy. You keep arguing as if it is not there, but there it is. This leads me to believe that you aren't really familiar with libertarian philosphy at all but instead simply parrot talking points that you get from other libertarians on the web.

You seem to be either a complete and total nitwit or a complete and total fraud. Which is it?

More name calling in lieu of answer to a philosophical question about your position. I am no longer surprised, and you are not being cute.

Again, why do you keep arguing straw men??? Look back at the very first post on this thread. The basic tenet the author puts forward is OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR PROPERTY. We are all self-owners, and ONLY self-owners. We can not sell ourselves to other people precisely because OTHER PEOPLE CANNOT BE OUR PROPERTY.

So are you arguing that you do not own yourself? Ownership implies property so either you are your own property or you are not. Which is it?

One possible base defintion of Libertarianism is that OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR PROPERTY. So what does that mean? IT MEANS NO HUMAN CAN OWN ANOTHER HUMAN. You're the one using distortion and obfuscation to try and muddy the waters, but my point remains: A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY BE CLASSIFIED AS PROPERTY SOLELY IN RELATION TO SELF-OWNERSHIP AND ONLY IN REGARDS TO SELF-OWNERSHIP.

You have no property that you can not sell to another and you have no property that another can not lay claim to as payment for debt or damages. If you own yourself, then you are property and the laws of property are quite explicit. Once again, the paradox within libertarianism.

What do you claim is the difference between INVOLUNTARY servitude and slavery? Because both should be illegal, and would be under a libertarian system.

Involuntary servitude involves the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion to compel a person to work against his/her will. Threatening an illegal immigrant to work for free in exchange for you not calling immigration services would constitute involuntary servitude. Slavery is a situation in which one person literally owns another.

And I am sure that you believe that both slavery and involuntary servitude would be illegal under a libertarian system, but making legal, the principle that human beings own themselves and are therefore property opens the legal door to both voluntary and involuntary slavery. Once again, it is the paradox within libertarianism. Examine the philosophy closely, it is there and it is undeniable.

As I said, the voluntary servitude that you were fearmongering about is completely legal in our present system, and since it isn't happening now, that means your argument is dead. Since, in a libertarian system, slavery and involuntary servitude will also continue to be illegal.

There is a difference between voluntary servitude and selling oneself into slavery. And under a libertarian system in which the concept of property becomes associated with human beings, they would no longer be illegal.

Explain PRECISELY and VIA THE LEGAL SYSTEM (BY WHICH SPECIFIC LAWS) how people will be owned by others under a libertarian system since slavery and involuntary servitude will be illegal.

First off, laws may be repealed. If you legally introduce the concept of self ownership to the legal system for reasons such as prostitution, or drug use, then you create precedent. Once precedent is established within the legal system, it may move in directions that one wouldn't expect. Since we are theoretically talking about libertarians holding sway in congress and the senate and possibly the presidency, then the idea of libertarian supreme court, circuit court judges also becomes part of the discussion. Do you believe that a libertarian judge would overrule the concept of self ownership and write off the arguments for prostitution and drug use or would he or she uphold the concept of ownership of one self and thus create precedent that human beings are property.
 
Still with the name calling in lieu of actual discussion?

Oh it's not in lieu of actual discussion, it's in addition to it. That's why you ran and cried to the admin - even after you started the personal attacks and arrogant attitude. Yes, that is further confirmation that you're a hypocrite.

Do you deny that libertarians support the idea of private security, answerable to the private individuals who hire them as opposed to public police who are answerable to all citizens?

You're not going to just change the subject at whim, when you get trapped. YOU DIDN'T ADDRESS THE ARGUMENT. So here it is again:

You said:
"In order to be a libertarian, you have to believe in a universal spirit of good will among human beings. As such, like thinking individuals would form private syndicates to protect their rights and security against others. If a universal spirit of good will existed among human beings, this would be a fine and dandy solution to individual security. The fact is, however, that no such universal spirit of good will exists,"

I replied:
If people are evil, then a "government" consisting of people will ipso facto also be evil.

Your point is disproven.
 
Are you arguing that there exists no society in the US, or anywhere else for that matter?

Once again, you apparently don't understand what constitutes the falacy you claim.

No, it is you that is once again, totally clueless. There is no society that functions as an entity. There is only a description of a group of individual human beings. If an asteroid struck the earth and every human being on the planet died, would "society" still exists beyond and separate from the individuals that comprise it? No, of course not.

Your point was:
"If you want to be part of a society, then you, by default, are obligated to pay the dues the society has associated with membership in the society. There is no free lunch."

To which I replied:
"There is no society - that's the reificiation fallacy."

MEANING that claiming society is a separate entity with "dues to be paid" is a fallacy, since it cannot gain rights higher than the individuals that comprise it, and all of those individuals have equal rights.
 
Did I not correct my statement and freely admit that two libertarians have been elected to state office? Where is the lie in that?

ROTFL. That doesn't change the fact that you lied to begin with. You can admit that you lied, but it doesn't erase the lie you told.

It's pretty funny to watch someone try and pretend and have integrity while they're weaseling out of a blatant lie.
 
Werbung:
Shetland pony rider wrote:
"To begin with, if you believe bush is a conservative then you know nothing of conservative principles and if you believe that any of these things represent them, you lack basic knowledge of conservative philosophy."

To which I replied:

"I don't believe Bush is a conservative, but BUSH SAYS HE IS A CONSERVATIVE. So is he stupid or a liar?

Why would a conservative such as yourself vote for Bush if he's not a conservative and you know he's not? Are you saying you'll compromise your principles?"

WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, SHETLAND PONY RIDER?


Why can't you answer my questions, arrogant one? Please stop running so your illogical and irrational positions can be exposed.
 
Back
Top