Libertarianism in One Sentence

[Rokerijdude11]

indeed i do Parroting wasnt the objective so I extend my apology to you.

 

[vyo476]

indeed i do Parroting wasnt the objective so I extend my apology to you.

Thank you.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

More evidence of why libertarianism is not the philosophy of mature people. Grownups know that almost all scientific experiments fail

ROTFL. Your Ad Hominem attacks are logical fallacies. Since you started it, I'm going to give as good as I get, so I will be returning the favor, but again, your "position" is completely and totally irrational and illogical. Probably a good case of Cognitive Dissonance that prevents you from seeing it. That and your over-sized ego, arrogant one.

Regardless, NO TRUTH CAN BE PROVEN OUTSIDE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. So, since you allege most experiments fail, is your position that the scientific method should be done away with??? ROTFLMAO!!!! Keep talking, Shetland pony rider. You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

and when one is talking about an economy, and a legal system that is the size of ours, when the experiment inevetably failed, there would be no going back. The damage would take generations to repair if, in fact, it could ever be repaired.

What a complete and total fraud you are. Have you no intellectual honesty whatsoever? Or do you just enjoy deceiving yourself and others? You might need to seek out a good therapist...

What did I quantify in my original statement? I stated that the experiments would start very small scale in a town or other small area.

You really need to stop lying and you also need to apologize to the people of this forum for attempting to defraud them via distortions and fallacies.

You are one pathetic little lying dweeb.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I am not the one promoting a flawed philosophy.

Yes, you are, you lying fraud. Conservatism is a completely flawed philosophy, as evidenced by your master Bush who purports to be a Conservative:

Government spending has gone up every single year under Bush.
The size of government has grown larger every single year under Bush.
The national debt has grown larger every single year under Bush.
The number of federal employees has increased under Bush.
The number of entitlement programs has increased under Bush.
The number of federal regulations has increased every year under Bush.
Government corruption has continued unabated among Republicans.
Bush has done nothing to create the smaller government he campaigned on.

He has either compromised his principles, or he lied from the beginning...which is it?

The fact of the matter is that

...You're a lying fraud. Yes, I think we're all beginning to get the picture on that...

libertarians consistently get 1% or less of the national vote. This doesn't happen because you are smarter than 99% of the population, it happens because most of the population see the immaturity that libertarian thinking represents.

So when 1% or less of the world's population believed the world was round, while the remaining 99% of the population believed it was flat - your argument is that the 1% weren't actually more knowledgeable than the 99%, but that the 99% saw the "immaturity" of the "round worlders" and therefore knew that the world was really flat? That would be an interesting concept...

By the way, the "immaturity" comment was yet another Ad Hominem, in case anyone is keeping count - better keep a long scorecard if that's the case...

Of course it is. To be a slave, one must be legally owned by another. LEGALLY OWNED. That is what slavery is.

Unfortunately for you, your flawed view of things "just ain't so" - see, with many words there are multiple possible meanings. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary some time and just try to look through it. Some have pictures, so you might try those. Might be easier for you.

Any other definition is flawed. Prove that your definition of slavery constitutes legal ownership.

My definitions are from unbiased sources - dictionaries. I've presented the evidence. You're the one that has to prove that they're flawed. And you're missing the definition of something else - de facto. Maybe you missed that one when you were telling your teachers that they were "immature" so you didn't need to listen to them. De facto means: Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially established. So one can be a de facto slave, without actually being "legally owned."

When I tell you to go pick up a dictionary and read it, you abject *****, you better listen to me. See what an ignorant fool I can show you to be? And there you were thinking you were smarter than everybody else...

None are more hopelessly ignorant than those who falsely believe they are knowledgeable. Think about that. It applies to you perfectly.

First off, if I am a slave, I am legally owned by someone else and since they own me,

Umm...no, as I just proved.

they also own everything that could be construed as mine. As a slave, I would not have anything that my master had not specifically given me and therefore would have nothing that someone else could take 50% of. Your definition is flawed

You are one seriously stupid fool, aren't you? You're trying to concoct one possible scenario and then claim that only your opinionated version can be true. ROTFMAO!!! Are you really this delusional? Get your ego under control, Shetland pony rider. It's totally misplaced. You do not set the circumstances for everything in the world, you arrogant fool. Again, the dictionary definitions include:

SLAVERY

1. drudgery, toil
2. submission to a dominating influence
3. a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding.

SERVITUDE

1. : a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life
2. : a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another

Here are some more

Slave:

One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence

someone who works as hard as a slave

a person who works very hard for someone else

Those are from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slave

I guess they all "need to grow up" since they don't agree with your flawed version...

The nature of libertarianism is that you must unilatarally redefine words in order for your philosophy to make any sense at all.

The nature of conservatism must be that you ignore valid definitions from valid sources or fail to understand them or experience Cognitive Dissonance when they disprove that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

There is no such thing as partial slavery. Another made up term. One is either a slave, or one is free.

Partial slavery is the joining of two valid terms. If someone else controls 50% of everything I earn, I am a de facto partial slave to them for that percentage of my own labor or property that I do not control.

Now refute that with a logical syllogism or shut your pie hole. And you better consider the full definitions before you make a fool out of yourself yet again...

If you don't like this system, you are free to travel the world seeking another that suits you better.

Why don't you admit you're an immoral fraud and leave? Who gave anyone else claim over the fruits of my labor or my property? Nobody. You need to stop stealing from people and trying to control them. In regards to upholding the inalienable rights of other individuals, you're a domestic enemy to the Constitution.

You are obviously never going to change this one getting 1% of the vote.

The American revolution was not supported by the majority, and many people support libertarian principles, they've just been deceived by you frauds in the two major parties. The truth will ultimately prevail over your lies. May take another 100 years, but it is worth the sacrifice.

And the "threat of force" analogy is so tiresome. Get a new one, and don't come up with "men with guns" either, it has already been used ad nauseum as well.

Sorry, but that's an accurate characterization. With taxes, for example,

I have shown you already. If you lack the intellectual wattage to comprehend it, that is not my responsibility.

This coming from a ***** who constantly uses logical fallacies... ok...

And in case you haven't noticed, it is you who is running away. Have you noticed that everyone you have talked to has pointed out that you are not answering specific questions they put to you?

Another complete and total lie - "Everyone you have talked to?" LOL. What a pathetic little liar you are. One other individual made that false claim in this thread - false because I did answer his question. I can't magically grant you people reading comprehension skills.

You regurgitate a flood of drivel in place of specific answers and then tell everyone how smart you are.

Oh, I've told no one I'm smart - nor do I claim to be. I'm simply noting - accurately - that you're a lying fraud and a ***** who apparently can't see through all the logical fallacies you're making.

Ownership of one's self makes one's self property.

LOL. What is it with you? (Besides the numerous flaws I've already stated) Ownership of one's self and control of one's actions do not automatically redefine each of us as property. If we were to be defined as property - as self-owners, no one else would have legal claim to us. So, there's absolutely no point to your alleged "point"...

One can sell property to another. Under the philosophy of libertarianism, one could legally sell oneself to another and fit the legal definiton of slavery. By the same token, if you owe me a debt that is larger than your monetary holdings, I am entitled to sieze your property, and if yourself is property, I woud have the legal right to sieze yourself in payment of debt. The fact that you don't see this glaring fact within your philosphy is evidence that you are not a mature, thinking person.

ROTFL. Thanks for pwning yourself, *****. The possibility that you're fearmongering about here ALREADY EXISTS, Einstein. Slavery and involuntary servitude are illegal, but what's still legal in our system? VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. That's why the income tax system works. If you sign on the dotted line and waive your rights, you can volunteer to be a servant. No problem.

If someone wanted to voluntarily go and be a live in servant for someone else with no monetary compensation whatsoever, they are legally free to do so, right now, under our current legal system. It would be a stupid decision, but they could do it, if it was their voluntary choice. The fact that this isn't happening proves your "argument" is completely and totally invalid.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I am not crying.

Sorry - you're lying and crying. I forget to include the full description that last time.

A political group that can't get elected to any office higher than city council and dog catcher hardly represents a threat worthy of crying over.

Well, we've been elected to the state legislature before, but hey, why should you stop lying at this point? You're on a roll...

There is a specific reason that your philosophy which has been around for quite some time can't gain traction. When you grow up, you will come to know why.

Yes, it can't gain traction because you Republicans and Democrats have spread lies, distortions and falsehoods and used the power of government to either keep Libertarians off the ballot, or force them to spend all of their funds in an effort to gain simple access to the ballot - funds that could have otherwise been used for political advertising. As shown here:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=897

 

[Truth-Bringer]

And the "threat of force" analogy is so tiresome. Get a new one, and don't come up with "men with guns" either, it has already been used ad nauseum as well.

Again, it's accurate. With taxes for example. Taxation is not a contribution.

If you refuse to pay, you will receive threatening letters demanding payment. If you ignore them, eventually a case will be filed in court. If you ignore the summons and fail to appear, a warrant will be issued for your arrest and men with guns will come to your home to take you to jail. If you tell them you're not going and to leave your property, they will forcibly try to take you in. If you physically resist and fight back, they can and will legally kill you.

The is how statutory laws are enforced - there is always the threat of force.

The only time government force is warranted is if one individual has violated the inalienable rights to life, liberty of property of another individual. Otherwise, it's illegitimate and immoral.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Not because I say so, because your philosophy says so. I have put the question to you, now you can either address it, or continue to roll on the flooor laughing in defeat. This is the typical libertarian response. Laugher in lieu of defending your philosophy.

Oh, I'm defending my position quite well by exposing all of your lies, distortions and fallacies. And will continue to do so below.

The answer to your question is no, I do not own myself.

So you don't have control over your own actions?

No one owns me.

Yet you're saying the government de facto owns you - you prove it below.

If I owned myself, I could sell my body parts for profit. I clearly can't do that, so I clearly don't own them.

Why can't you sell your body parts for profit though? You can't BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WILL SEND MEN WITH GUNS TO ARREST YOU IF YOU TRY and control your behavior to make you do what THEY want you to do. Because they view you as their property to control. If no one else owns you, why are you allowing them to control your actions and your body?

Whoops... You've been pwned again, Shetland pony rider.

And I control my actions to a degree, exactly as you do. In any society, you are given a range of options that you may operate within.

"You are given" Given by who? Who decides and why? Why do some view other people as their property? What gives these people who "give a range of options" that right?

Aren't questions fun, Shetland pony rider? They tend to reveal when people don't know what the @#$% they're talking about...like you...

 

[Rokerijdude11]

I knew a storm was brewing. Damn Boys im in love!!! T-B Hot damn have you really bloomed throughout your learning I am
impressed with your new found vigor!! A gal after my heart
you have come a verry long way in a relative short time. you have surpassed me in your Quest.


Bring the truth like you always do

 

[palerider]

ROTFL. Your Ad Hominem attacks are logical fallacies. Since you started it, I'm going to give as good as I get, so I will be returning the favor, but again, your "position" is completely and totally irrational and illogical. Probably a good case of Cognitive Dissonance that prevents you from seeing it. That and your over-sized ego, arrogant one.

Rolling on the floor laughing again? Is that how you typically avoid arguments? Do you know the definition of an ad homenim attack? Do you believe that what I said was one? If so, you are wrong. An ad homenim attack is a personal attack in lieu of an actual argument. I clearly made an actual argument in pointing out that most scientific experiments fail. Then I pointed out that a thinking adult wouldn't suggest "experimenting" with something like a national economy and legal system.

Regardless, NO TRUTH CAN BE PROVEN OUTSIDE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. So, since you allege most experiments fail, is your position that the scientific method should be done away with??? ROTFLMAO!!!! Keep talking, Shetland pony rider. You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Do you believe shouting makes a thing true? The truth makes a thing true. If you only accept the scientific method, then Thomas Jefferson performed the tax experiment and it failed. You do know, don't you, that it is insane to repeat the same experiment again expecting different results?

And more name calling? Do you believe that bolsters your position? You must be very young and quite immature if you believe it is cute.

What a complete and total fraud you are. Have you no intellectual honesty whatsoever? Or do you just enjoy deceiving yourself and others? You might need to seek out a good therapist..

What did I quantify in my original statement? I stated that the experiments would start very small scale in a town or other small area..

Do you believe for a second that the results of an economic experiment carried out on a very small scale like a town or a county would be valid when applied to a system as large and complex as the entire US?

Calling names and hurling insult in lieu of actual argument isn't helping your case here.

You really need to stop lying and you also need to apologize to the people of this forum for attempting to defraud them via distortions and fallacies.

You are one pathetic little lying dweeb.

So far, you have neither pointed out a lie, distortion, or fallacy on my part. Simply saying a thing doesn't make it true. If this represents actual argument in your mind, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[vyo476]

Yes, you are, you lying fraud. Conservatism is a completely flawed philosophy, as evidenced by your master Bush who purports to be a Conservative:

Government spending has gone up every single year under Bush.
The size of government has grown larger every single year under Bush.
The national debt has grown larger every single year under Bush.
The number of federal employees has increased under Bush.
The number of entitlement programs has increased under Bush.
The number of federal regulations has increased every year under Bush.
Government corruption has continued unabated among Republicans.
Bush has done nothing to create the smaller government he campaigned on.

He has either compromised his principles, or he lied from the beginning...which is it?

I think most true conservatives will tell you that the modern-day Republican Party doesn't adhere to traditional conservative principles. If Ralph Nader started calling himself a libertarian you wouldn't take him seriously, would you?

So when 1% or less of the world's population believed the world was round, while the remaining 99% of the population believed it was flat - your argument is that the 1% weren't actually more knowledgeable than the 99%, but that the 99% saw the "immaturity" of the "round worlders" and therefore knew that the world was really flat? That would be an interesting concept...

You're living in a democracy now, not a medieval fiefdom or Renaissance Italy, both places being controlled by the Catholic Church. The Church, being the governing body of its day, did what it thought it had to to suppress things like science and alternative religions because it believed they would be damaging to its rule. In an eerily similar fashion, our democracy doesn't vote in Libertarians because the people believe that would be damaging to their rule (or what there is of it anyway).

The American revolution was not supported by the majority, and many people support libertarian principles, they've just been deceived by you frauds in the two major parties. The truth will ultimately prevail over your lies. May take another 100 years, but it is worth the sacrifice.

None of us claims to be "in the two majors parties." We're just less extreme than you are in our political values. Parties are driven by, obviously, the need for political gain; we are driven by personal morals and ideals. If you are suggesting that we're corrupt in some way, I'd like to know how posting on an internet politics forum is going to deliver to us any type of corrupt gain.

Another complete and total lie - "Everyone you have talked to?" LOL. What a pathetic little liar you are. One other individual made that false claim in this thread - false because I did answer his question. I can't magically grant you people reading comprehension skills.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I was that one other individual and I've yet to find a very clear answer to the question I asked. When you responded to my question the first time, this was what you wrote under the quoted question:

I think a lot of people don't want to try libertarianism just because of fear, which is irrational. All we're calling for is experimentation, via the scientific method, to apply our principles. If it fails, we can always go back to what we have now. There's no risk if we start with a small, area, a small city or large town, then go to a state, then regional, and finally the federal level if all works as planned.

One thing is certain, refusal to experiment is irrational and unscientific. All scientific progress and verification of truth has come via the scientific method, which is based on experimentation.

Why not experiment? It's already been done on some levels, such as Thomas Jeffersons administration, with great success:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=898

Socialists and collectivists don't want to experiment with it because they want more government - plain and simple - and there are a lot of socialists in the media who don't want to do any stories on libertarianism as a result. Politicians don't want to experiment with it because THEY LOSE POWER in such an environment. They can't purport to come save everyone and save the world when the government is limited solely to protecting individual rights under natural law.

I don't see an answer to how the government holds accountable those who violate its laws in there anywhere. While it is possible that you did answer this question somewhere else in the thread and I just missed it, I don't see it and would greatly appreciate it if you'd point it out as I am genuinely interested to hear what your answer is.

 

[palerider]

Yes, you are, you lying fraud. Conservatism is a completely flawed philosophy, as evidenced by your master Bush who purports to be a Conservative:

Government spending has gone up every single year under Bush.
The size of government has grown larger every single year under Bush.
The national debt has grown larger every single year under Bush.
The number of federal employees has increased under Bush.
The number of entitlement programs has increased under Bush.
The number of federal regulations has increased every year under Bush.
Government corruption has continued unabated among Republicans.
Bush has done nothing to create the smaller government he campaigned on.

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. If you are going to say that the philosophy of conservativism is flawed, then you must point out philosiophical flaws. These are neither philosophical in nature, or representative of the tenets of conservativism.

He has either compromised his principles, or he lied from the beginning...which is it?[/quote]

Who ever said that bush is a conservative? He is a republican. Do you believe the party platform of the republicans represents the conservative philosophy? Is that what you believe? It is clear that you are not armed for a philosophical debate.

...You're a lying fraud. Yes, I think we're all beginning to get the picture on that...

Childish, and not an actual argument at all. What lie have I told? What fraud have I perpetrated? Calling names doesn't constitute either argument, or defense of the points I have made.

So when 1% or less of the world's population believed the world was round, while the remaining 99% of the population believed it was flat - your argument is that the 1% weren't actually more knowledgeable than the 99%, but that the 99% saw the "immaturity" of the "round worlders" and therefore knew that the world was really flat? That would be an interesting concept...

So your argument is that you are smarter than 99% of the population? The case you have made for yourself so far doesn't reflect that. Name calling and avoidance of points put to you doesn't make you look smart....or cute.

The people who believed the world was flat were uneducated, and had no frame of reference that would suggest to them that the world was any more than what they could see with their eyes. Hardly analogous to what people think of a political philosophy.

Unfortunately for you, your flawed view of things "just ain't so" - see, with many words there are multiple possible meanings. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary some time and just try to look through it. Some have pictures, so you might try those. Might be easier for you.

If your argument is that we are literal slaves of the state, it fails because in order to be a literal slave, one must be owned by another. If your argument is that we are figurative slaves of the state, then the argument is based on nothing more than sarcasm and not worthy of serious consideration. Are you arguing that we are literal or figurative slaves of the state

My definitions are from unbiased sources - dictionaries. I've presented the evidence. You're the one that has to prove that they're flawed. And you're missing the definition of something else - de facto. Maybe you missed that one when you were telling your teachers that they were "immature" so you didn't need to listen to them. De facto means: Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially established. So one can be a de facto slave, without actually being "legally owned."

So your argument is that we are figurative slaves of the state and is therefore based on nothing more than sarcasm?

When I tell you to go pick up a dictionary and read it, you abject *****, you better listen to me. See what an ignorant fool I can show you to be? And there you were thinking you were smarter than everybody else...

This defends your position, or proves your point how? Namecalling is a poor substitute for actual debate. If you are trying to be cute, you are failing. If you are trying to prove that calling names is an adequate substitute for actual debate, you are failing. If this is ment as an actual argument, it has failed.

Umm...no, as I just proved.

Proved what? You haven't philosophically, or scientifically proved anything. You have called names a lot and said that you are right a lot, but have yet to prove anything.

You are one seriously stupid fool, aren't you? You're trying to concoct one possible scenario and then claim that only your opinionated version can be true. ROTFMAO!!! Are you really this delusional? Get your ego under control, Shetland pony rider. It's totally misplaced. You do not set the circumstances for everything in the world, you arrogant fool. Again, the dictionary definitions include:

So again, you are stating that your argument is that we are not literal slaves of the state and that when you say that we are slaves, you are in essence being sarcastic and not pointing out any actual truth? If this is the case, then your entire position is without merit.

The nature of conservatism must be that you ignore valid definitions from valid sources or fail to understand them or experience Cognitive Dissonance when they disprove that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The nature of conservativism "must be"? Is that an admission that you don't actually know the tenets of conservative philosophy? You have made claims that you do, but here again, you are showing that you do not.

Partial slavery is the joining of two valid terms. If someone else controls 50% of everything I earn, I am a de facto partial slave to them for that percentage of my own labor or property that I do not control.

Yeah, and partial pregnancy is also the joining of two valid terms. Often two valid terms can't be jointed to create one valid concept. Either one is a slave and is owned by another or one is not. A slave does not have the option to leave his situation unless he flees illegally. Any of us has the option to leave any time we choose and therefore we are not even partial slaves.

Now refute that with a logical syllogism or shut your pie hole. And you better consider the full definitions before you make a fool out of yourself yet again...

I just did.

Why don't you admit you're an immoral fraud and leave? Who gave anyone else claim over the fruits of my labor or my property? Nobody. You need to stop stealing from people and trying to control them. In regards to upholding the inalienable rights of other individuals, you're a domestic enemy to the Constitution.

Because it would be untrue. By choosing to live here, you freely give over whatever percentage of your income that the government requires. Do you believe that you can join a country club, or any other organization and have free use of the facilities and priveledges associated with it and not pay the dues? 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.

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

The American revolution was not supported by the majority, and many people support libertarian principles, they've just been deceived by you frauds in the two major parties. The truth will ultimately prevail over your lies. May take another 100 years, but it is worth the sacrifice.

Many people support pieces of the libertarian philosophy. There are overlaps between liberal philosophy and conservative philosophy and there are overlaps between liberal and libertarian philosophy and conservative and libertarian phlosophy. If we go down the list of the tenets of the libertarian philosophy people of most philosophies would agree on certain principles, but that is not the same as embracing the entire philosophy and calling oneself a libertarian or supporting a libertarian. Few embrace libertarian philosophy because it is terribly flawed and that is why libertarians get such a small percentage of the vote.

The opportunity for libertarianism to prosper was before the internet made information abundantly available to joe blow. It was possible in those days to withhold from public knowledge the destructive nature of libertarianism. Those days are gone. You have even less chance now of becoming a popular philosophy now than you had before. The ambassadors of libertarianism are all very much like you. Reflect on your incessant name calling and ask yourself how much you believe you have influenced anyone to seriously consider a philosophy such as yours.

This coming from a ***** who constantly uses logical fallacies... ok...

You have yet to point out any? You repeat ad hominem over and over but don't seem to know what it means. Like slavery.

Another complete and total lie - "Everyone you have talked to?" LOL. What a pathetic little liar you are. One other individual made that false claim in this thread - false because I did answer his question. I can't magically grant you people reading comprehension skills.

Sorry, responding in a manner that doesn't answer the specific question put to you doesn't constitute an answer.

Oh, I've told no one I'm smart - nor do I claim to be. I'm simply noting - accurately - that you're a lying fraud and a ***** who apparently can't see through all the logical fallacies you're making.

Which logicl falacies? Which lies? Saying a thing doesn't constitute proving a thing. So far, the extent of your argument has been to insinuate that I am lying without actually proving it and calling me names? You have not successfully defended a single point so far.

LOL. What is it with you? (Besides the numerous flaws I've already stated) Ownership of one's self and control of one's actions do not automatically redefine each of us as property. If we were to be defined as property - as self-owners, no one else would have legal claim to us. So, there's absolutely no point to your alleged "point"...

If I can claim ownership of myself, then I am, by default, property. Anyting that can be owned is property. I own various property that you have no claim to unless I owe you a debt, and then you may lay claim to whatever I own in payment of that debt. If I, myself, am the property of myself, and you may lay claim to whatever I own in payment of debt, then you may lay claim to me as well.

Unless of course, your position that we own ourselves is a figurative argument and not a literal one. If it is figurative, then, once again, your argument is not based in any sort of truth.

ROTFL. Thanks for pwning yourself, *****. The possibility that you're fearmongering about here ALREADY EXISTS, Einstein. Slavery and involuntary servitude are illegal, but what's still legal in our system? VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. That's why the income tax system works. If you sign on the dotted line and waive your rights, you can volunteer to be a servant. No problem.

So is the concept that you own yourself. You may not sell your body parts, you may not sell yourself in payment of any debt. Therefore, self ownership is illegal.

If someone wanted to voluntarily go and be a live in servant for someone else with no monetary compensation whatsoever, they are legally free to do so, right now, under our current legal system. It would be a stupid decision, but they could do it, if it was their voluntary choice. The fact that this isn't happening proves your "argument" is completely and totally invalid.

But we are not talking about the current legal system. We are talking about the potential of a libertarian legal system. The fact that it isn't happening now is because we are not operating under the libertarian view of what is and is not legal.

If you can't do any better than calling names and making baseles claims, then you really should cut and run while you can. It is neither intelligent, nor cute. I know young girls like to be cute, but you are failing here. Either debate the issue or hang it up.

 

[palerider]

Sorry - you're lying and crying. I forget to include the full description that last time.

And you forgot to include anything that supports that position either.

Well, we've been elected to the state legislature before, but hey, why should you stop lying at this point? You're on a roll...

One 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.

Yes, it can't gain traction because you Republicans and Democrats have spread lies, distortions and falsehoods and used the power of government to either keep Libertarians off the ballot, or force them to spend all of their funds in an effort to gain simple access to the ballot - funds that could have otherwise been used for political advertising. As shown here:

So far, you haven't pointed out a single lie that I have told. You have behaved in a very immature manner, calling names and hurling insults in lieu of defending your philosophy. Libertarians all over the internet behave exactly as you do. Your own behavior is a reflection on libertarianism. Who do you believe has done the greater damage here? Me, pointing out philosophical flaws or you ranting and calling names rather than making an attempt to demonstrate that my thinking is incorrect with regard to the flaws within the philosophy.

 

[palerider]

Again, it's accurate. With taxes for example. Taxation is not a contribution.

If you refuse to pay, you will receive threatening letters demanding payment. If you ignore them, eventually a case will be filed in court. If you ignore the summons and fail to appear, a warrant will be issued for your arrest and men with guns will come to your home to take you to jail. If you tell them you're not going and to leave your property, they will forcibly try to take you in. If you physically resist and fight back, they can and will legally kill you.

If you wish to belong to any organization, and society is certainly an organization, you will be expected to live by the bylaws of that organization and if there are dues associated with belonging to that organization, you will be expected to pay them. Failure to pay will result in expulsion. If you behave as you suggest in the face of law officers doing their duty, then you should expect to recieve less than a friendly greeting and the law clearly states that should you actively fight an officer of the law, they may respond with deadly force.

The fact that you want a free ride does not release you from the obligations that you accept if you wish to be a part of the society. You are perfectly free to leave this nation and seek one that more closely suits your preference at any time. Once again, proving that you are not a slave since literal slaves are not free to make such choices.

The is how statutory laws are enforced - there is always the threat of force.

There is threat of force if you belong to any organization and fail to live by its rules and bylaws.

The only time government force is warranted is if one individual has violated the inalienable rights to life, liberty of property of another individual. Otherwise, it's illegitimate and immoral.

That thinking only applies in a society that thinks as you do and has laws that reflect that sort of thinking. Such is not the case in this society. If you want to belong to it, you have a responsibility to accept the obligations that go with membership.

 

[palerider]

Oh, I'm defending my position quite well by exposing all of your lies, distortions and fallacies. And will continue to do so below.

So far, you have defended nothing. You have called names, you have hurled insult and you have made the claim that I have lied and made logical falacies but have yet to point out any.

So you don't have control over your own actions?

I have control of my actions and may make choices within certain boundries. Having control over a thing doesn't constitute ownership of a thing. We do not own ourselves because human beings are not property to be owned. This is the major flaw within libertarianism.

Yet you're saying the government de facto owns you - you prove it below.

de facto - in fact; in reality. In reality, no one owns me. Ownership of human beings is illegal because human beings are not property.

in fact; in realityWhy can't you sell your body parts for profit though? You can't BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WILL SEND MEN WITH GUNS TO ARREST YOU IF YOU TRY and control your behavior to make you do what THEY want you to do. Because they view you as their property to control. If no one else owns you, why are you allowing them to control your actions and your body?[/quote]

I can't sell my body parts, because they are not my property. If they were property, then not only could I sell them, but someone else could claim them in payment of debt or damage. Human beings are not property. To suggest that we are is to suggest that ownership of ourselves could be transferred to someone else thus making us a literal slave. The paradox of libertarianism raises its ugly head again.

"You are given" Given by who? Who decides and why? Why do some view other people as their property? What gives these people who "give a range of options" that right?

Aren't questions fun, Shetland pony rider? They tend to reveal when people don't know what the @#$% they're talking about...like you...

By who? Are you unaware that our government is we the people. 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?

Do you believe that you are the property of a country club that you might join just because they expect for you to pay dues?

And once again, do you believe that name calling is cute? Are you under the impression that it is an acceptable substitute for actual argument? Do you really believe it helps your case?