• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's Libertarian Moment

The non-aggression principle merely says that the initiation of violence is ethically unjustified. It doesn't forbid you from giving a starving person food or from treating sick people.

So then the starving or sick person has to just roll over and die so that you can keep your precious property. Not surprising that you don't take the obvious position of empathizing with the person in trouble. No, I clearly was only talking about rules that govern you, because that's all that matters, right?
 
So then the starving or sick person has to just roll over and die so that you can keep your precious property.

No, they must find people that willing to help them on their own accord. You look like a nice candidate. What about you?

Not surprising that you don't take the obvious position of empathizing with the person in trouble.

Who says he doesn't? He just cares about both parties involved and he is not willing to abuse the one to help the other.
 
So then the starving or sick person has to just roll over and die so that you can keep your precious property. Not surprising that you don't take the obvious position of empathizing with the person in trouble. No, I clearly was only talking about rules that govern you, because that's all that matters, right?

No, I am in favor of sharing and cooperation, and I have no idea what gave you any impression to the contrary. As I said, it is libertarians who are in favor of sharing and cooperation, as opposed to non-libertarians who are in favor of violence and coercion.
 
So what does your philosophy say if I have food and you're starving?

It's your food. You can give me some if you want. You don't have to, as my hunger is not your responsibility.

So then the starving or sick person has to just roll over and die so that you can keep your precious property.

You are never entitled to my property so you can pay for goods you want to consume (like food) or services you request for yourself (like healthcare).


Saying that others starve so that I can keep my money is the most ass-backwards way possible to represent the situation. It's mine. If I want to give it away, I can. I'm not in any way responsible for your situation or the goods and services you want to buy, so my keeping what is rightfully mine doesn't hurt you. At all.
 
Last edited:
The Cato Istitute was for gay marriage, against extending pre-clearance on voting rights and against affirmative action, all cases in which they were on the winning side at the Supreme Court.

The rise of the Tea Party is seen as a sign of increased popularity of libertarian ideas. The Tea Party is about smaller government, lower taxes, and less government spending and does not really have a social agenda.

More like, it's about knownothingism, ignorance, letting the rich dominate society, xenophobia, scapegoating, spending endlessly on useless unaudited military adventures, and failing to maintain infrastructure for the future.

Oh yes, and did I mention their obsessive desire to punish this generation of American because most tea partiers were the stingy guys in the 60s who never got invited to parties.
 
No, they must find people that willing to help them on their own accord. You look like a nice candidate. What about you?

Who says he doesn't? He just cares about both parties involved and he is not willing to abuse the one to help the other.

So your right to callously let other people suffer is paramount? That's your whole argument. You don't have to care because other people will. You are parasite. You feed on the compassion of better people who have the decency to care. While good people work to better the whole community, you just sit there and hoard what you have, reaping the benefits while refusing to contribute.

No, I am in favor of sharing and cooperation, and I have no idea what gave you any impression to the contrary. As I said, it is libertarians who are in favor of sharing and cooperation, as opposed to non-libertarians who are in favor of violence and coercion.

Pay careful attention. Your philosophy is just one on paper. It doesn't hold up in the real world, and real manifestations of it are just like the one above. Sheer unbridled selfishness. I get the desire to protect individual rights. That's actually one of my biggest issues. I get the idea of living free from violence. But a system built on the goodwill of just the people who decide to contribute is not going to work, and it breeds the real kind of moochers and parasites, like the above. Take a more realistic approach.
 
You are never entitled to my property so you can pay for goods you want to consume (like food) or services you request for yourself (like healthcare)..


Who says? Did God give you property rights?

That's what's so funny about libertarians. Their theoretical premises are so shoddy and unthought they can't even deal with them.

Tells us, in plain word, where do we get property rights again?

(Oh this will be fun!)
 
So what does your philosophy say if I have food and you're starving? Or if you have cancer and I own the hospitals and won't let you get treatment unless you pay me a whole lot of money that you don't have? In actual practice, the "non-aggression" bit mostly ends up as people who were lucky enough to be born into a comfortable life defending the status quo so they can keep that comfort. Meanwhile, everyone born without it still doesn't get it.

Were the situation reversed we'd help you out. The difference is that the government wouldn't be coercing people to help you. If it were you, who knows whether you'd help other people or not? Left wingers are famously stingy, seeing no need for charity since they advocate that it be done by the government (advocating that the power of the state be used to threaten people with arrest and imprisonment if they don't contributed money to transfer payments is their idea of compassion.) But in any case, someone would help.
 
Who says? Did God give you property rights?

That's what's so funny about libertarians. Their theoretical premises are so shoddy and unthought they can't even deal with them.

Tells us, in plain word, where do we get property rights again?

(Oh this will be fun!)

Yeah, the theoretical underpinnings of socialism are so much better! Pfft!

The right to be secure in one's property is a natural right. One possible meaning of that is that it's a right that comes out of our mutual desire to form good societies. No one wants to live in a society in which what they have and possessions they value will be taken from them without just cause, thus we have the mutual desire to validate property rights.

What's the theoretical construct in socialism? They want to take your property because ... well because they want it, I guess.

The Soviet Union tried for 70 years to abolish the desire for private property in men. They failed utterly.
 
So your right to callously let other people suffer is paramount? That's your whole argument. You don't have to care because other people will. You are parasite. You feed on the compassion of better people who have the decency to care. While good people work to better the whole community, you just sit there and hoard what you have, reaping the benefits while refusing to contribute.

If people decide to help others or if they simply do nothing to help them has nothing to do with me. If I gain something from their help is entirely secondary, and once again I had nothing to do with any of it. I don't need to help people because you deem it fit and if I decide to hoard what is mine that is my decision to make. If all I decide to care for is myself and spend no time even considering others is of no concern of yours.

Perhaps you need to spend less of your time worrying about me and my property and more time concerning yourself with your own desires to better the condition of those your care for. If I decide to join you in your cause is entirely up to me. I do however enjoy how you assume I give nothing to the poor.
 
That Tea Party members have certain opinions on social issues doesn't mean the Tea Party is advocating those opinions or that it was formed to advocate them.
There's nothing in there about social issues.
Nothing there about social issues, either.

Opponents of the Tea Party's agenda of fiscal responsiblity, AKA Takers, wish to misrepresent the Tea Party in order to limit their effectiveness.

There's little difference between "Tea Party members have certain opinions on social issues" and "the Tea Party is only concerned about fiscal issues."

Do you think that if these tea partiers have strong opinions on social issues the are just going to simply ignore them when voting, just because they consider themselves Tea Partiers? Having a strong conversative stance on social issues may not be required to be considered a Tea Partier, although I would highly argue that point, but regardless of whether its required or not to be considered a Tea Partier those opinions will reflect in elections.

Also there is no one source for what the Tea Party says about itself, it has no offical platform like the Dems or Republicans.
 
Pay careful attention. Your philosophy is just one on paper. It doesn't hold up in the real world, and real manifestations of it are just like the one above. Sheer unbridled selfishness. I get the desire to protect individual rights. That's actually one of my biggest issues. I get the idea of living free from violence. But a system built on the goodwill of just the people who decide to contribute is not going to work, and it breeds the real kind of moochers and parasites, like the above. Take a more realistic approach.

So you're saying that you consider the initiation of violence to be justified? You consider it ethical to violate or harm another person's body or to trespass upon, damage, or take things that are owned by others?
 
Back
Top Bottom